I certainly have no knowledge of any of these facts, factoids, legends or whatever of none of these historical golf courses that everyone seems to get their panties in a wad over. But, Mike Young merely asks a question about whether this site helps create revisionist history. Well, on that I am going to be inclined to believe, yes. I'm also going to opine that revisionist history can have either a positive or negative connotation.
If a specially invested group in the perception of an historical event has an ideal or desire to prove things happened in one way, and dig up spurious or misleading or misinterpreted facts, factoids, or less than original source material to try and form a new vision of what may have happened in history, and that makes their group, cause or whatever look better in that context, despite overwhelming original source material that concluded and had been conventional wisdom, then revisionist history is a bad thing.
But, if sifting and winnowing, debate and presentation of new, original source, on-the-ground accounts of events from participants, such as a diary recently discovered, or a lost set of documents, bills, etc., are uncovered and used in proper context to what was previously known, and the revisionist has met the burden of reasonable proof to change the understanding of events, chronologically, or major players in the event, or their provable motives, etc., then revisionist history, that withstands scrutiny is good.
As a side note to these endless debates on what in my opinion are trivial factoids of what date play occured and to what extent a course was lengthened, it doesn't seem to change the basic context of the history of that particular club, who did the GCA work, and what was there generally in terms of features of design. How it evolved to today and the changes that occureed and why over many decades may be more of the living history that is important to understand the process of GCA, in the evolving history context. What was there on say a Tuesday, Oct 25, 1923 or Friday, April 4, 1924 etc, could be slightly different, remodelled, lengthened etc., but hardly a new course designed by a different archie, and different design visions, it seems to me.
But, in any event, I'd finally say that while I'm no scholar, I generally find when I read 'serious' history books, that the authors use FOOTNOTES often, and present their source material upfront. Then, whether revisionist or reinforcing or adding on to what was already known, the reader can go to the source material, if so inclined, and DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES. The historians may get into a sifting and winnowing debate on the accuracy of the new material (probably in some trade historian journal) and sometimes the disagreements get resolved, and sometimes not. But, for the general consuming public interested in the history of one event or era or another, they are left to either try and read objectively and wisely, and form their own opinion of whose historical account is more plausible.
If people have some deep seated need to believe a 'revisionist' version, that more suits their personal belief system, they aren't going to accept the more scholarly and well footnoted with origianal source material citations. They will believe the flimsy constructions of those that have an agenda beyond the documented truth as we have discovered it.
So, good fellows of the profound golf college of scholarly historical studies, state your case, leave your footnotes, and just let the rest of us decide whose facts ring sound, without the animosity of a petty debate about nothing much, really. Speaking for myself, I think it really gets stale, gentlemen.