Talk:Revanchism

message: I'm not even sure that "Revenge" is a legitimate article. However, such unsubstantiated/unsourced personal opinions as "Revanchist sentiments provoked two 19th-century wars ... " and such is unaccetable. - Ted Wilkes 15:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The text reads: Revanchist sentiments provoked two 19th-century wars between Prussia and Denmark over Schleswig and Holstein (the First war of Schleswig 1848-1851 and the Second war of Schleswig in 1864). What other motives for these two wars have ever been offered?  I've noticed that many more fastidious editors avoid applying those stickers. --Wetman 22:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: "Revanchism" is a widely used term that has counterparts in French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish, Chinese, Japanese, and Hebrew.  (The above link to Answer.com also displays the same article on revanchism as appears here in Wikipedia.)
Revanchism is also a common enough term to be defined in Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition: 
:"REVENGE; especially : a usually political policy designed to recover lost territory or status." 
Given the existence of this term and its undoubted basis in historical fact, Mr. Wilkes's point that he is "not even sure" that "revenge," presumably "revanchism," is a legitimate article is not well taken. For example, if the web article  Germany 1919-1990 is in any way accurate, it would be surprising if at least some Germans in 1921 did not have a desire for revenge and, especially, for recovery of the territories lost to Germany that the article lists. No doubt, it was a lot more than some Germans.
To say that one is "not even sure" is not helpful.  If Mr. Wilkes is not sure that revanchism is an appropriate subject of an article, he should withhold comment until he is sure and then say plainly why a certain phenomenon in human history does not belong in an encyclopaedia of human history.
This link to the First war of Schleswig shows that the author of the article correctly described that war as having revanchist objectives. Thus, even if the author did not adequately source his or her assertion in the view of Mr. Wilkes and it is the author's personal opinion, it nonetheless appears that the author's views on at least one of the 19th century wars are correct.
Mr. Wilkes's syntax is deficient and undermines the effectiveness of his objection to the article. 
Wetman's question about what other motives might have been involved in the First and Second Wars of Schleswig is perhaps relevant.  However, he or she should come right out and make an argument that other motives drove the conflicts, rather than just ask a an open-ended question whether there might have been other motives.
Wetman should also not hide behind "I have noticed" if he or she wants to make a point about the author's alleged lack of fastidiousness. That particular point was not successfully made, moreover, and no example was cited of any of the more fastidious editors known to Mr. or Ms. Wetman.  Wetman should make a straightforward argument that "revanchist sentiments" is a term that is intellectually unsound.
The warning label about the neutrality of the article is not warranted by the objections raised by either Mr. Wilkes or Wetman.
: Richard Ong 16:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unwarranted caveat about neutrality

message: The article appears to have Russia and France's entries into WWI reversed.  
'This is one of the major reasons France went to great pains to woo Russia over to its side, first by means of the Franco-Russian Alliance of 1894, and then by a series of accords, including the Triple Entente, which eventually led Russia to enter World War I on the side of the Allies.'
Russia entered the war (not yet 'The Great War') in defense of Serbia, not as a result of it's treaty obligations towards France.  France might have entered the war as a result of the Triple Entente treaties, but in the event it was invaded by Germany before that decision was made.
I'm going to go ahead and reword this section, if no one objects.  MilesVorkosigan 19:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Revanchism's influence on Russia's entry to WWI?!  

message: Recent deletions of sections of text wereapparently based on personal or local national prejudice. I have restored them. --Wetman 23:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rv dl. Posen is an example, if you want to add a counter-example, do so instead of deleting this passage. You pretend that "often" is a "weasel word", but you use it in the next sentence. Lapaz 18:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These demands were also made regardless of short historic relationship of certain regions to Germany or any German majority in the demanded region. For example the area of Polish Corridor became part of Prussia only in 1772 and in 1931 only 9,6 % of the population was German.
This is no different from the last instance and filled with misleading and invalid information. Prussia never obtained the Polish Corridor as an entity. "9.6% of the population was German after it was ceded to Poland?" That means nothing to me. If I'm German, its doubtful that I'm sticking around the Corridor after its seized. How many Germans could even speak Polish?--Hohns3 00:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You are missing the point of my comment and you are taking the example you cite out of context. It shows the declining percentage of the German population in Western Poland in order to bring to our attention the "orphaning" effects of the Treaty of Versailles due to ethnic expulsion. Citing a 1931 figure for a largely cleansed town in Poland in order to show that city x was Polish all along is not only manipulative, but misleading. --Hohns3 15:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent deletions

message: There is nothing here about Arab revanchism after 1948, or the Soviets use of the word as a propaganda tool against West Germany.68.111.71.197 (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The article is incomplete

message: The article needs to be wikidized. I would do it myself if I knew how. Unfortunately, I need to leave it to someone else until I learn how to do it on my own. Capital Markets (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up needed

message: The Revanchist ideology seems to be a direct, almost painfully obvious influence for the Mandalorian War and Jedi Civil War plotline of the Star Wars expanded universe, as seen in Knights of the Old Republic, Knights of the Old Republic 2, and the graphic novels dealing with that section of the expanded universe. In the story, a group called the Mandalorians invades Republic space, and make rapid gains. The Jedi Council is reluctant to respond with war, but a Jedi caled Revan leads a movement called the 'Revanchists' to push back and reclaim the lost territory. Elements of revenge and idealism are replete in the story. --70.209.124.101 (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference in Popular Culture 

message: This may sound stupid, but I've been wondering just how it's pronounced; is it revanchism or revankism? 76.179.128.231 (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exceptionally belated, but I have to point out that the above cite (now) gives as alternatives "revanchism" and "revanshism.  (i.e. English 'ch' vs French 's', /tʃ/ vs /ʃ/.)  Which are the main variations I can recall hearing in the wild, also.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronounciation

message: What the devil is "autochthonous"?  Is this a misspelling? 
76.88.3.72 (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a word. It is in both the Oxford Dictionary and Merriam Webster. It is not a misspelling. Nlaylah (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autochthonous 

message: First sentence is really hard to understand for a normal non-technical reader. E.g.
"incurred by a country" 
- passive writing style
- unclear what/why incur is needed versus a plain word such as "cause"
- sentence implies a country did something to itself which to a lay reader is puzzling
"political manifestation of will'
- now the sentence has no clear actor, because how is "country" that appears much later in same sentence clearly related to this very technical phrase 
Etc. just basic college-level writing style issues. 66.183.194.126 (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence not written in a clear style 

message: Just because the word "revanchism" isn't used when discussing decolonization on Native American terms, that doesn't negate it from being revanchism. The desire to reverse territorial losses in the name of decolonization is, in practice and by definition, revanchism. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @DaRealPrinceZuko, Please read our policy on original research. You shouldn't add content that  If you want to add content on decolonization as revanchism, you need to find sources that discuss it as such. Otherwise you're doing original research and violating policy. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be original research to include the word "ethnonationalism" in Apartheid, just because it wasn't used by the National Party of South Africa or the sources it cites for example? Also, there are articles that use the word revanchism when discussing the issue of Native American decolonization: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1193&context=ailr 05:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever your saying about Apartheid is WP:OTHERCONTENT, focus on the discussion here. You need a good reliable source that calls decolonization a type of revanchism if you want to include that content. There are two problems with the source you linked. First, its by a disgraced professor, William C. Bradford. Second it uses the word revanchism once in the opening sentence to say  It does not link the concepts of decolonization and revanchism. Also, did you read the 177 page article you linked? Because I did and the author doesn't make your claim and he writes in favor of land repatriation for Native Americans in a very long, very general article about tribal law. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Are you suggesting that semantics are more important than practice? Also, most definitions of revanchism describe it as a movement to regain lost territories, with the Oxford dictionary definition even describing it as "a policy of attacking somebody who has attacked you, especially by a country in order to get back land", which correlates with the Land Back movement. 18:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm only suggesting that you follow our policies on original research and reliable sourcing. Which requires an expert to make this claim in a source, not you making an argument with a dictionary. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: How is conflating the act of regaining Native American lands with revanchism original research if the practices and ideologies are virtually the same? Also, how do dictionaries (i.e. Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, Oxford Dictionary, etc.) not count as reliable sources? 21:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native American revanchism