at this point, the entire raison d'être of a lot of mainstream historians is to say "the previous guy categorised this slightly wrong!!" and hope this is seen as controversial enough it'll get talked about, but not controversial enough that they'll get branded a revisionist historian.

take "The Dark Ages" as a case in point. the available evidence has broadly been covered, because there is very little, so historians, who have to be seen to be doing something, have decided a rebranding is in order, with the vague notion that "The Dark Ages" is offensive to the very dead people of that era