In support of the "revised history" perspective, the negationist historian uses false documents as genuine sources, presents specious reasons to distrust genuine documents, exploits published opinions, by quoting out of historical context, manipulates statistics, and mistranslates texts in other languages.[16] The revision techniques of historical negationism operate in the intellectual space of public debate for the advancement of a given interpretation of history and the cultural-perspective of the "revised history".[17] As a document, the revised history is used to negate the validity of the factual, documentary record, and so reframe explanations and perceptions of the discussed historical event, in order to deceive the reader, the listener, and the viewer; therefore, historical negationism functions as a technique of propaganda.[18] Rather than submit their works for peer review, negationist historians rewrite history and use logical fallacies to construct arguments that will obtain the desired results, a "revised history" that supports an agenda – political, ideological, religious, etc.[4] In the practice of historiography, the British historian Richard J. Evans describes the technical differences, between professional historians and negationist historians: