John Töns,
I was not using a theory in the process of doing history. I was discussing the process of doing history itself, or rather, one point in my understanding of how history is done. My point stands. I do not like the application of theories in doing history, because it can work against understanding the empirical evidence.

To provide the single example of Keith Windshuttle's opinions is not sufficient, to say that there is a 'universal tendency' amongst historians to shape history according to their 'biases'. Keith Windshuttle is one historian only.

Once you start 'to be fair': you are only now starting to offer the clarification that you should have provided in your article. One cannot lump all types of history, and all types of teaching or presenting of it, together, and make such generalizations about them as you did in your article, nor expect them all to do the same thing. If you are only discussing school teachers of history, please make that clear. Do not, as I said, casually insult all historians for their 'universal tendency' and the rest. You might apply some other principles of doing good history to your article-writing: provide appropriate evidence, and be precise. I do believe the original article was rather awful.