“I OFTEN THINK IT ODD THAT IT SHOULD BE SO DULL, FOR A GREAT DEAL OF IT MUST BE INVENTION.”
-Catherine Morland on History

The most naïve policeman would know to not believe everything a witness is saying, even if he doesn’t use the full potential of his knowledge. Similarly, historians (not men) have come to realise that they cannot believe all historical information blindly (evidence would be the wrong word). Historians have understood that manuscripts can be forged, facts can be exaggerated and physical evidence can be faked. Does this leave any room for any distinction between a myth and a historical fact? Having that distinction is important.
However, it is an undeniable truth that myths originate from facts and hence cannot be completely false. Then from where does the question of having to make this sort of a distinction arise from? Does a distinction even exit? If yes, where does it come from? Questions like these have made history one of the most uncertain and ambiguous disciplines.
When one is asked the question ‘What is history?’, we subconsciously give the answer to the broader question of our view of the society we live in. History can be viewed as a collection of facts produced by historians to reconstruct the past. This means that most people understand the distinction between “history” and “past”. Past includes facts that already happened whereas history is a reiteration of those facts from a historian’s point of view.- I get what you’re trying to say and you’re right in your way. However, it is important to understand that often history is considered everything that has happened in the past. Perhaps the only difference is that history is the study of past events. ‘Past’ is the portion of the time that has occurred.
March Bloch has defined history as a science of men in time. It is important to add “men in time” in this definition as how history is viewed by a historian depends entirely on the current circumstances he’s living in: the society, his religion, his gender, his family, his education (quality of education? All historians are well-educated) and other such factors. These factors influence the writing of a historian, making it biased, turning facts into myths (not all historians turn facts into myths. Mention that somewhere. This is a very vague statement). Hence, this is where the ‘distinction’ we discussed earlier arises from in the first place. This implies there’s a lot of scope for historians to see history as their take on what has happened in the past. This can lead to of ambiguity while studying the subject (you have used ‘discipline’ too often- the teacher will think that you ran out of words. Look up for synonyms on Google in such cases. Don’t use the same word again and again. Makes the reader feel that your grammar is limited). Rewriting history means reiteration of facts by historians by putting their own methodological and ideological insights into it. A person might think that since facts are same for everyone, their accounts by all historians should be somewhat similar. However, that is not the case. Apart from the factors mentioned above that affect the writing of a historian, historians also use different methodologies and ideologies while analysing facts to come to the same or different conclusion.
When one studies historical writings and the scholarly judgments of such accounts, he discovers that there are some standards which the historians are expected to meet. Failure to meet such standards leads to their writing becoming biased and ambiguous (or, unfair and ambivalent?). According to Behan McCullagh, there are four ways to avoid bias in historical writing.

--------
First, historians sometimes misinterpret evidence, so that they are responsible for ensuring the credibility of historical facts they used or not. For example, they might attend to evidence that suggests that a certain event occurred, but ignore evidence that shows it to have been impossible. Second, when historians compile an account of a historical subject, be it a person, an institution, or an event, what they say about it might be justified and credible but the account might omit significant facts about the subject so that it is unbalanced unfair. For instance it might elaborate upon people's virtues but ignore their vices, giving an unfair impression of their character. The third kind of bias is that of a general description of the past that implies facts which, on the evidence available, are known to be false. Thus a Marxist might describe a revolution as a class struggle when there were no classes involved in it at all. A fourth common form occurs in providing causal explanations of historical events when some but not all of the important causes are mentioned, so that the reader gets a misleading impression of the process by which the event came about.
More often than not cultural, political and religious bias creep into historical writings. Such bias has had an enduring influence on Indian historiography. Indian history, especially the Mughal history has been largely influenced by religious bias

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. ‘The historian’s craft’ by Marc Bloch
[ 2 ]. Bias in historical writing, descriptions and explanations’ by C. Behan McCullagh