In general usage, the term "revisionist history" has nothing to do with the Holohoax. It's used to indicate an alteration of the facts, after the fact. The implication is that one is moving from fact to fiction.

When 'hoax busters use the term, they imply the opposite, that they're moving from a state of fiction to one of fact.

That's great, but one has to be fairly knowledgable already to understand this. For someone coming in cold, it looks something like "Flat Earth Society" except serious. It's very, very strange looking.

Yes? No? Do you believe the label is helpful, harmful, or neutral?

Unfortunately the label 'Revisionist' has almost become a byword, an epitaph for notoriety, used to demean or insult.
Reformer has less of a stigma attached to it.
They aren't actually revising anyway inasmuch as reforming, imo.

Revisionist has almost become a byword, used to demean or insult.
Reformer has less of a stigma attached to it.

I didn't think to ask for alternatives.

My kneejerk is that "reformer" is much preferable. Good one.

I don't think it's well chosen. To my ear, 'revisionist' at best smacks of someone going back and revising details. I don't see it as changing facts after the fact, as you say, but as correcting mistakes made by earlier historians.

I don't think 'revising' is big enough to cover what is actually going on. The 'revisionists' are refuting massive lies; decades-long campaigns of slander against entire peoples.

There's really no other word for it, revisionism is a common practice by historians and happens in almost every conceivable topic in historiography.

I don't think it's well chosen. To my ear, 'revisionist' at best smacks of someone going back and revising details.

. . .

I don't think 'revising' is big enough to cover what is actually going on. The 'revisionists' are refusting massive lies; decades-long campaigns of slander against entire peoples.

Yes! It can also be read as jot-and-tittle-ism, which downplays the scope of the work.

I don't mean to imply too much: the response to revisionism is pretty much controlled by the enemy, through framing via media/education. Still, it doesn't seem the best marketing, and it's something the enemy doesn't control.

We must define ourselves, and create a reality that is congruent with nature as best we can. Passively accepting enemy definitions is pure folly. When the MSM definitions are incongruent with how we define ourselves their bias becomes transparent, thus undermining the propaganda's effectiveness. Define positive things by positive affirmations, and with that understanding here are some suggestions: Historical researchers, historical investigators, historical fact finders, independent historians, historical fraud detectives, disinformation correctors, and finally; objective historians as opposed to corrupt historians beholden to the prevailing power of the times for their substance.

historical fraud detectives, disinformation correctors,

I really like the idea here. "Disinfo Detectives"

Frame the enemy from the outset. Don't leave it open to (mis)interpretation.

I prefer your variation too. Now that we know professor Moriarty's method perhaps a compendium of corrupted words should be compiled with the necessary corrections, so that clarity can be restored? Xenophobe to xenoscientia, and, or magishomogeneousdefensor. Those opposed to the latter are homogeneousphobes in dire need medical treatment.

http://161.58.68.147/content/tacc/police/holmesmagnifyingglass.gif