Not just deliberately trying to force a narrative... trying to force a narrative that is contrary to what is commonly accepted to have happened, specifically because their new narrative benefits them financially, politically, socially, or in some other way.

A "revisionist historian", as I understand it, is a manipulator, a con artist, a gaslighter. Someone who is trying to convince people of some history that didn't actually happen, because doing so will enrich them.

This article... seems to try to revise "revisionism"?