Is that a real thing or is it a fundie invention, like irreducible complexity or macro-evolution?
Rational wiki is surely not biased in any way. Would you, I wonder, read articles I posted from creation.com?
It's technically used to differentiate between things that are provable and unprovable. For example, we know that the Roman Empire existed, but it is technically impossible to prove that conclusively, because it cannot be repeated in a laboratory, and it cannot be shown any other way.
In other words, the distinction is "testable" and "untestable", it's just easier to call it historical and operational. Evolution in the grand sense is not testable i.e there is no way to test and prove conclusively that man came from non-man, it has to be assumed based on data. However, it can just as easily be assumed that man has always been man based on the same data.
But, it is not possible to assume that things like the electromagnetic force don't exist, based on the data, because that can be repeated in the lab, and your home, etc. It could be shown false if it were repeated and found different or whatever.
So - Repeatable, falsifiable = operational Not repeatable, falsifiable = Historical. You can ask any scientist and they will agree with my assessment. Perhaps you're right and it was defined by malevolent Christians of doom, but that's ultimately irrelevant, and it probably commits the fallacy fallacy.
I was hoping not to have to define it, because arguments like that are very uninformed, and I don't like to waste my time except to say that you should learn more.