[janalsncm]

Probably a difference in epistemology. A historian should try to start with facts and primary sources and draw a conclusion from them. A revisionist starts from a (perhaps politically motivated) conclusion and looks for facts to support that conclusion.

[moate]

This is the thing: When you "draw the conclusion" you're making shit up. "The roman empire collapsed" <all good "because..." <beginning of making shit up.

All history books should begin with "A map is not the territory" to remind historians what's going on.