Article seems to be engaging in a bit of sophistry. Yes you can claim historical revisionism has been "widely applied" when you redefine it in the broadest possible way that mostly ignores the context in which it is being used in modern discourse. I might be assuming the worst here, could just be an instance of click bait. If you changed the title of the article it's a fairly dry explainer piece about historiography and the reliability of sources. With the title it feels like somebody performing transparent apologetics for the politically charged historical revisionism trend.