Okay, I'm trying to stay out of this (though you two really should take this to one of your own respective blogs), but I feel compelled to point out, fpb, that the point is valid: the fact that you've written a lot of articles, and even a book, is not very meaningful when you don't cite your sources, nor is there any evidence of peer review. (I looked at your History of Britain and I could not find a bibliography, and even your footnotes mostly refer simply to source materials whose lines you quote -- almost none of your arguments have any supporting citations.)
This is not meant to disparage your education, but seriously: you cannot call yourself a "scholar" just because you've read books and posted essays on the Internet. Actual scholarship requires citing your sources and being peer reviewed. Do you understand why it makes people skeptical when you try to play the "I am a scholar: respect my learnings!" card?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-04-02 08:30 pm (UTC)This is not meant to disparage your education, but seriously: you cannot call yourself a "scholar" just because you've read books and posted essays on the Internet. Actual scholarship requires citing your sources and being peer reviewed. Do you understand why it makes people skeptical when you try to play the "I am a scholar: respect my learnings!" card?