Anything and everything will be disputed by academia.
No one gets their name in print by saying "The established understanding of this text/action/ event is correct and there's nothing left to say about it" - even if that established understanding is, in fact, correct.
No one. No matter how great the writer, or how famous their name.
It's exhausting.
Before you go labeling me a flat-earther, I'm not talking about fields like medicine and hard science where you should be emphasizing new research and new ideas.
Even in the liberal arts I'm not above revisiting even a well-traveled topic once every few decades or whenever the fundamental basis of our comprehension has changed - if you discover that JFK faked his death, yes, then let's revisit the Warren report, shall we?
What I *am* saying is that caution should be exercised whenever you see a new secondary source put forth information or a point of view notably at odds with what has come before. It doesn't mean its wrong, and in fact in might be the course-correction needed to put the tale right . . . but too often, especially in biographies, what gets you published is novelty; what gets you sales is dirt, and neither word necessarily includes the concept of "truth."
