I haven't read the article yet (as usual, checking comments to figure out if it's worth it), but I can at least tell you what "revisionist history" is, because

I haven't read the article yet (as usual, checking comments to figure out if it's worth it), but I can at least tell you what "revisionist history" is, because I've seen it where I live. This kind of "history" starts with the assumption that all the sources, or at least huge majority of them, are manipulated or downright fiction. It then tells you that a) the sources were manipulated by X for Y and with support of Z (with names ofc); b) there were other sources, that were not manipulated. The latter are mostly unprovable, because there is no way to cross-check them and no way of tracking their history, yet they are believed in above all doubt. "Revisionists" then say that they can "learn" everything, "all the truth", from the manipulated, untrusted resources they previously dismissed and then they become silent for a year, during which they try to get access to those documents. Shortly after they have it, the fun starts - every other week there is some revisionist who presents a "proof" that such-and-such lied, murdered, stole and so on. That's only a beginning though, because they soon want to demolish statues and change the street names, fire people from work (from police, army, all the other public services). Then the elections come and suddenly they disappear. Well, at least that's how revisionists looked like in my country. The article is not that bad for sure :)