Though it strikes me that if the study of history is a constantly revisionist process by nature, then to describe any particular form of it as "revisionist" to the exclusion of another form is a fallacy ...

... Unless ...

... there is be a seperate meaning to this word, when used in the context of the study of history.

If we use it correctly, we are committing a fallacy as it is unnecessary, since all history research is revisionist. So if we use it at all we must be using it according to a different meaning.