What is revisionist history?

a.
when historians correct misunderstood facts
b.
when historians’ interpretations break from traditional ones
c.
when historians rewrite an interpretation in their own words
d.
when historians support orthodox interpretations
e.
when historians uphold traditional interpretations repeatedly

B is correct.

Explanation: historians who hold there was no holocaust are considered revisionists. Today there is a strong tendency in Ucraine (for example) to rewrite history of the WW II and reject some fundamental thesis infused to its inhabitants to previous Soviet historiography. In France (for example) after the WW II there was a so-called "immunity thesis" (author: René Rémond) according to which French did not have their own sort of fascism but the fascism was imported to France (this thesis started being questioned and rejected by foreign historians Paxton and Sternhell much later). Revisionists are also those who reject using traditional terminology. In Brazil historians traditionally spoke about "discovery of Brazil" (1500), today some of them use word "invasion" or even "genocide". The question is to which degree we project our contemporary situation (political, social) to the past.

“i think it is very plausible that if there are five votes to end the death penalty, it could be with the people who are on the court right now,” - smith

so basically it is not clearly and consistently imposed

me on my last question.