1) Claim that the linguistic data has been misinterpreted, in particular, that a whole bunch of names of places have been attributed to wrong languages, and that you can interpret what they mean. That’s what I’ve been doing here. Mainstream historical linguistics dismisses some rather obvious patterns in the names of places in Croatia as coincidences, and I think that, for some of them, it can be shown they are very unlikely to be due to chance, on the order of 1/10’000 or so. It’s hard to tell how likely it is that I am right, but I think it’s very likely I am more right than most of the people who have researched the names of places in Croatia, simply because, as far as I know, nobody else has even tried to apply mathematics to studying where names of places in Croatia come from.
2) Claim that the places mentioned in historical sources have been wrongly located. I’ve done that once on my web-page about the names of places in Croatia, I claimed that the name “Lissa” did not refer to the island of Pag, as the mainstream history claims, but that it’s, in fact, the ancient name for the island of Ugljan. I based this on Pliny the Elder in Naturalis Historia in 3rd book in the 63rd chapter having written "Contra Iader est Lissa.".
I am not sure how valid that argument is, in fact, I am not sure whether claiming stuff like that significantly damages my credibility. Although, I don’t think it can be nearly as wrong as what Anatoly Fomenko is doing with his historical revisionism.https://flatassembler.github.io/toponyms.html wrote:I think that, if Pliny wanted to refer to Pag, he could a lot more appropriately write "contra Aenonam" or, even better, "contra Vegium" (Vegium being the ancient name for Karlobag), rather than "contra Iader".
3) Claim that events in recent history are mythological and that the ironic meanings in names are evidence of that. Now, I am quite sure almost everybody here would agree it was a mistake of me to claim something like that, and I agree with that now.
So, what do you think, which of these three types of historical revisionism are acceptable and why? Do you think that there are some other types of historical revisionism which are acceptable?