What is a "revisionist grammar", with reference to English grammar?
How does such a grammar differ from other similar things, such as descriptive, prescriptive, and conventional English grammars?
Do web-based English grammar sites (including EL&U) tend to reinforce or undermine revisionist, conventional, descriptive, or prescriptive grammars?
My own understanding of "revisionist" is neutral, neither pejorative nor complimentary. I borrow my understanding of "revisionist grammar" (such as it is) from my understanding of so-called "revisionist histories". All histories are stories; these stories are different each time they're told by a different teller at a different time; likewise all grammars are stories, etc. The truth value, if any, of the stories of history and grammar varies.
Two examples of uses of the phrase in question, "revisionist grammar", taking care to cover the range, including apparently non-pejorative along with pejorative uses.
Russell found that when we let the visible grammar lead us, we are soon trapped in what he considered an ontology of semantical referents that consist of rather "paradoxical objects." It seemed to Russell that we cannot satisfy at once the two natural ideas of (i) syntactic faithfulness (keeping the visible grammar intact) and (ii) semantic faithfulness (keeping the semantics referential). To escape this predicament, two major philosophical (and soon adopted in formal linguistics) methodologies, both revisionist, have been pursued.
On the first grammar-revisionist policy, ....
"Feminist revisionist grammar" (the use of feminine pronouns as gender indefinite) is a pet peeve of mine, because according to the rules of standard English it changes the meanings of sentences to imply that all of those the sentence describes are female ....
Various other examples from the web. These examples are not intended to be comprehensive.
Phonological Representations: Their Names, Forms and Powers, John Coleman, Cambridge University Press, Jan 29, 1998.