The latest on l'affaire Bellesiles

[Lynne Henderson]

One assumes the continuing posts on Belleseiles to this list have to do
with the implications of his book for "original meaning" of the Second
Amendment.  Given, however, that a couple of other historians have gotten
in trouble recently--on plagiarism, rather than accuracy of
research/representations to be sure--does this indicate a problem in
history generally that had escaped notice?  How are untrained lawyer types
to know whether they can rely on historians' work (the "secondary source"
problem) ?  Not to mention of course that histories and interpretations are
contested in any event.
Any advice would be most welcome, off list is fine.
Best
Lynne

Lynne Henderson
Vis. Prof. UC Davis
hendersl at ix.netcom.com
At 01:07 PM 1/30/2002 -0800, you wrote:

>         The Globe just had a piece yesterday on the forthcoming William &
> Mary Quarterly issue devoted to this question:
>
>
><http://boston.com/dailyglobe2/029/living/Historians_criticize_author_s_gun_research+.shtml>http://boston.com/dailyglobe2/029/living/Historians_criticize_author_s_gun_research+.shtml
>
>
>-----Original Message-----  From:   Mark Tushnet
>[SMTP:tushnet at LAW.GEORGETOWN.EDU]  Sent:   Wednesday, January 30, 2002
>7:43 AM  To:     CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu  Subject:        Re: The
>latest on l'affaire Bellesiles
>
>The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2-1-2002, has an article on
>the  controversy.  The web-link
>is:
><http://chronicle.com/weekly/v48/i21/21a01201.htm>http://chronicle.com/weekly/v48/i21/21a01201.htm,
>although this may be  available only to subscribers. << File: Card for
>Mark Tushnet >>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20020130/8aeeacb7/attachment.htm