This is called interpretation.
This is when critics want to find meaning in what an author has written. Analysis is much broader while scanning is incorrect. Evaluation is also inappropriately used here.
First, it's associated sometimes with highly contentious theories, such as Holocaust denial. Recall the public furor in response to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's 2007 speech at Columbia University, when he stated that the Holocaust didn't happen. Historians emphasize that people who deny the events of the Holocaust during World War II aren't practicing revisionist history but rather negationism. Another revisionism-related scandal occurred recently in Japan, also concerning World War II. The general of the Japanese air force authored an essay asserting that Japan was bullied into Pearl Harbor by the United States and only engaged in combat as a defensive measure. This brings up the issue of credibility that has marred the field of historical revisionism. The public tends to view revisionist theories of well-known historical incidents tied closely to its own lineage with more skepticism than those regarding more obscure events.
In the end, only a small quantity of revisionists histories are eventually accepted as fact.
