[Atlas Sneezed]

Bang

[SES1066]

It is interesting that in reading this full article, one can see both the advantages and deficiencies of peer review. The advantage comes that from the first articles, Bellesiles was on notice that his work had flaws. The disadvantages came from the fact that it was published and awarded the Bancroft Prize long before the criticisms caught up to the lies. One thing that this helps establigh, Bellesiles is an out-right fraud and liar.

[Drango]

bump for later read

[anobjectivist]

Speaking of inaccuracies... Forbes had a list of things that were inaccurate in the movie Bowling for Columbine. I thought that was interesting.

[elbucko]

Why do law reviews fact check articles? To quote Don Kates, a civil rights attorney who did much of the early work in the legal history of gun control, “Law reviews check facts because lawyers lie.”

No, you don't say!

Excellent read at the link. I'm glad Cramer is on the RKBA side. The exposure of the tendency Bellesiles has toward error makes the likelihood of his ever finding a reloading partner, doubtful.

[Cuttnhorse]

Good post beckett, what an interesting man is Cramer.

[mvpel]

Clayton will be a featured speaker at the Northbridge CounterAttack Conference coming up in Dallas Texas on February 8-9.

[Djarum]

The Bancroft award should have been transferred to Clayton Cramer.

[Southack]

Diversity of opinions in the media?!

Oh please.

Surely you didn't think that Time was going to award their Person of the Year award to a whistleblower like Clayton Cramer, did you?!

Conservative good deeds are simply NOT to be discussed in any positive light by liberals...

[Cicero]

Nice article. Frankly, I don't believe for a minute that Belisles was awarded the Bancroft Prize because the prize review committee didn't think to question his citations, or that the Newberry Library Committee awarded him a second NEH grant because they didn't think to question him either.

At the time the two committee reviews were taking place, Bellisles's scholarly integrity was ALREADY being publicly and vociferously questioned. The readers for the journals and the book publisher didn't have that advantage, but they should have known, too, and probably they did know. They just didn't want to know, as the saying goes.

The truth is, dedicated liberals are perfectly willing to lie or to cover up lies in what they consider to be a good political cause. We have seen it repeatedly in the news media. I am aware of similar shoddy and lying scholarship in my own scholarly field. Many colleagues of the writers are perfectly aware that these books are plain lies, but they prefer to sweep that inconvenient fact under the rug because the scholar in question has the right (i.e. left) political views.

So, maybe it's only polite to give these people the benefit of the doubt when they say, "Oh, we didn't have time to verify quotations. We naturally trusted the author to tell the truth." But in point of fact they are probably lying too. People like Eric Foner, responsible for steering the Bancroft Prize to Bellisles, don't hesitate for a second to lie in a good cause. They think lying is a virtue.

[Centurion2000]

bump

[Fiddlstix]

Bump

[tpaine]

bump

[TigersEye]

Hey Bellethiles! You don't know buttcrack about history do ya? Hit the bricks, liar.