I submitted this as a post, but the moderators thought it worked better here. Badhistory should only have history that is flat-out wrong, not matters which are up to the interpretation of the historian. [Note: As I was doing research for this post, I realized that most of the badhistory on this subreddit is solely factual errors. However, the above is still a good rule.] What I am saying is that badhistory is not wrong because "it is not how most historians/I think that event happened", it is wrong because "it almost certainly never happened at all". For example, this is from a review of a documentary on Chinese weapons: "The claim that the Chinese crossbow was responsible for countless victories is exaggeration of the worst sort. Many Chinese armies with crossbows were defeated by the Khitan, for example." Claiming that something is wrong just because you believe it is an exaggeration is a claim that can be argued, and arguing is not the point of this subreddit. A better quibble from the same poster, from a review of a documentary on the "barbarian" tribes of Europe: "The host says the term "barbarian" came from the Sanskrit word for stammering. Holy Mother Tongue! jokes aside, the modern word is actually from ancient Greek - "barbaros", which has generally been interpreted to mean something or someone foreign or alien. The Greek term is etymologically descended from an old Indo-European word (not Sanskrit) but it was transmitted to the rest of Europe through Greek usage, context and pronunciation." This seems to me like it is clearly not true, which is what the point of this subreddit is to me. Even if you disagree with a historian, they must make a serious error to be held accountable on this subreddit.