Does "revisionist" sound neutral (neither positive nor negative)here?

Context:
Frank Dikötter (English pronunciation: /diːˈkʌtər/ Chinese: 馮客) is a Dutch historian and author of Mao's Great Famine. The book won the 2011 Samuel Johnson Prize.[2] Dikötter is Chair Professor of Humanities at the University of Hong Kong, where he teaches courses on both Mao Zedong and the Great Chinese Famine,[3] and Professor of the Modern History of China from the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London.

Dikötter is considered to be a revisionist historian, having stressed the benefits of opium smoking in Patient Zero, as well as calling for the rehabilitation of Republican China under Chiang Kai-shek in The Age of Openness.[4][5]

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Dik%C3%B6tter

Have a look here at the Wikipedia entry on "Revisionist History". The very first line should answer your question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emsr2d2

Have a look here at the Wikipedia entry on "Revisionist History". The very first line should answer your question.

---

Quote:

---

Historical revisionism, the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event

---

Neutral?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NewHopeR

Neutral?

---

Does it actually say that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NewHopeR

Neutral?

---

It depends on your politics. A lot of people in the West think revisionist history is bad, but there are polities that still practise it and assume that it's good.

b

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NewHopeR

Neutral?

---

I'd say it's rarely neutral. To be called revisionist, it almost has to be ideologically- or politically-based.
For example, at school, we used to learn about the Foundation of Australia on 26th Jan, 1788 by the British Governor, Arthur Phillip. That is our national day, Australia Day (just gone). Today, many history books and other works refer to this as the Invasion of Australia, and refer to 26th Jan. as Invasion Day.
Naturally, what you refer to this day as depends on your politics.

If it were discovered that this event actually occurred on the 27th, not 26th, that would be a revising of history, but it wouldn't be called historical revisionism.