is a decent historian but, in my opinion, does not write in an unbiased manner. I should note that selecting a topic can be biased as hell, there is nothing wrong with that (we only research and write abiut what we find interesting) but some of his books and articles, from an historian's POV, are a little skewed. It should be noted that he is not immune to the "I didn't cite everything" disease that can make academic books a dreadful bore. Wiener states that there was a concerted attack on Belleisle's book that started on the internet and chat rooms but, at least in the part that I read, did not immediately support that with examples and citations.
Wiener also discusses that Bellesilse's under went scrutiny above and beyond that of many historical analyses but the vast majority of historical works/analyses were not awarded Bancroft Prize. Many works that are awarded prizes like this are put under a microscope as they become important works in their fields and quickly become highly cited works. If a book is destined to become that important, it is critical that they be examined from all directions to ensure that it is accurate and worthy of becoming an important work.
Please keep in mind that not only did Emory University disassemble Bellesilse's work, so did Columbia University. After they did, they rescinded their Bancroft Prize (something, it should be noted, that they had not done in the 50+ years the prize had been in existence). Keep in mind also that the field of history, in the decades before, underwent a lot of scrutiny because of people likes of David Irving (and no, I am not comparing Bellesilse to Irving) who had voluminously cited works that no one bothered to review his source documents. When people did, there was a significant "oh shit" moment when they realized that he was a complete and total crackpot.
= new reply since forum marked as read