Orange County NY Shooters  A site focused on Orange County NY With Local & State Gun, Firearm and Handgun rules and New York gun laws.  How to get a handgun license and local Gun Stores, Gun Ranges, People, Clubs, Gunshows, Hunting & Shooting related events. CLICK HERE TO VISIT THE HOME PAGE OF OCShooters.com CLICK HERE TO E-MAIL ME This web page was highlighted in the NRA ALERT NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 9, No. 51 12/20/02

     With the information that much if not all of the data used to write the book, Arming America, was false, I decided to see if any libraries in Orange County had the book on the shelf.  In April, I used the internet to search and found that 14 libraries in the area, including some in Orange County, had the book.  I decided to see if I could get one library to remove the book.  I chose the Goshen Library, at random, to see if they would remove the book based on the fact that it had been discredited.  I called the library and on April 30th, 2002 I sent them follow up e-mails.   The Library Director was very nice and willing to base her decision on the facts only.
     Removing a book from a library should not be done lightly and should be done only after careful consideration and then based only on facts in evidence.  Even then, some books that contain some errors or misrepresentation should not necessary be removed.  The recent books by Goodwin and Ambrose contained plagiarism but are examples of books that still might be worth keeping.  Arming America, however, is a book that has been as discredited almost as much as any book can be discredited and is in a class by itself.
    The Goshen Library should be be complimented for its willingness to listen and then make a rational decision based only on the presented facts including research by others and Emory University's final report and findings. I will be contacting other libraries to ask them to remove the book in the next few months.
     The following are a list of some of the links and articles I have found.  #9 is my original e-mail to the Goshen Library and #10 is the Goshen Library's final reply.
 

1. http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i21/21a01201.htm   The Chronicle of Higher Education, From the issue dated February 1, 2002,  Did the Shootouts Over 'Arming America' Divert Attention From the Real Issues? Scholars heaped praise on a book, ignoring critics who have been vindicated on many points, By DANNY POSTEL
2. http://www.claytoncramer.com/unpublished.htm Clayton Cramer's information on the book and lots of links to articles about the book.
3. http://www.nationalreview.com/15oct01/seckora101501.shtml  Disarming America, One of the worst cases of academic irresponsibility in memory. By Melissa Seckora, NR editorial associate October 15, 2001 issue, Originally posted September 11, 2001
4. http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment112601.shtml  Disarming America, Part II,  Why won’t Michael Bellesiles seriously respond to his critics?  By Melissa Seckora, NR editorial associate,  November 26, 2001
5. http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment012902.shtml

Nation Review OnLine Disarming America, Part III, Award-winning author Michael Bellesiles changes his story again. A report by Melissa Seckora, NR editorial associate,  January 29, 2002
6. http://www.cocohistory.com/ From what we know, it would appear to be impossible to count guns in San Francisco probate inventories from 1849-50 or 1858-59 in our collection, since we have no such inventories.

Last, we cannot confirm that Professor Bellesiles did substantial research in our collection in 1993 (as he claims) or at any other time before his visit in January, 2002. We do not remember him visiting our collection before his recent visit. We have searched our log books and invoices for the years 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 and find no record for research fees or photocopies. Further, we are not cited or acknowledged in his book, something we always expect and receive.
7.  http://www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/Releases/bellesiles1035563546.html Oct. 25: Michael Bellesiles Resigns from Emory Faculty, October 25, 2002,

Robert A. Paul, Interim Dean of Emory College
     I have accepted the resignation of Michael Bellesiles from his position as Professor of History at Emory University, effective December 31, 2002.
Although we would not normally release any of the materials connected with a case involving the investigation of faculty misconduct in research, in light of the intense scholarly interest in the matter I have decided, with the assent of Professor Bellesiles as well as of the members of the Investigative Committee, to make public the report of the Investigative Committee appointed by me to evaluate the allegations made against Professor Bellesiles (none of the supporting documents, however, are being made public). The text of the report is now available online at www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/.
     Emory considers the report authoritative.
     In conducting this investigation, Emory has scrupulously observed the procedures laid out in our published policy statement regarding matters of alleged research misconduct. Throughout the investigation process our efforts have been guided by the objectives of maintaining the highest standards of scholarly integrity, while also striving to ensure the confidentiality of the proceedings and to protect the rights of a member of Emory's faculty.
     The Investigative Committee was chaired by Stanley N. Katz, Professor of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, and included Hanna H. Gray, Judson Distinguished Professor of History Emerita and President Emerita, University of Chicago, and Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, James Duncan Phillips Professor of History, Harvard University. I hereby express my appreciation to these distinguished scholars for contributing their effort and expertise to the resolution of this matter of such great importance not only to Emory but to the wider scholarly community. Committee members have stated that they will not discuss or respond to questions about the investigation or the report.
     Emory also wishes to express its thanks and appreciation to Professor Bellesiles for his many years of service and his many valuable contributions to the University.
     Emory now considers the investigation of allegations of research misconduct against Professor Bellesiles in connection with his book Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture to be concluded and resolved.
 
8.  http://www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/Releases/Final_Report.pdf  REPORT, of the Investigative Committee in the matter of Professor Michael Bellesiles, 10 July 2002

Selected sections from the report:
The most egregious misrepresentation has to do with his handling of the more than 900 cases reported by Alice Hanson Jones. When critics pointed out that Jones’ data disagreed with his, Bellesiles responded by explaining that he did NOT include Jones’s data in his computations because her inventories, taken during the build-up to the American revolution, showed a disproportionately high number of guns! Here is a clear admission of misrepresentation, since the label on column one in Table One clearly says "1765-1790." If Professor Bellesiles silently excluded data from the years 1774- 1776, as he asserts, precisely
because they failed to show low numbers of guns, he has willingly misrepresented the evidence. This, compounded with all the other inconsistencies in his description of his method and sources and the fact that neither he nor anyone else has been able to replicate any part of his data, suggest that there is a real discrepancy between the research Professor Bellesiles did and his presentation of that research in Table One. ... In summary, we find on Questions 1 and 2,
that despite serious failures of and carelessness in the gathering and presentation of archival records and the use of quantitative analysis, we cannot speak of intentional fabrication or falsification. On Question 3, we find that the strained character of Professor Bellesiles’ explanation raises questions about his veracity with respect to his account of having consulted probate records in San Francisco County. On Question 4, dealing with the construction of the vital Table One, we find evidence of falsification. And on Question 5, which raises the standard of professional historical scholarship, we find that Professor Bellesiles falls short on all three counts.
9. MY ORIGINAL E-MAIL TO THE GOSHEN LIBRARY:

Thank you for your help
Michael A. Bellesiles's Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun  Culture
This is a link to the article:

http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i21/21a01201.htm

additional info:
University asks historian to defend his research on gun  ownership book

By David Mehegan, Globe Staff, 10/3/2001  Emory University historian Michael A. Bellesiles, author of a controversial  book on gun ownership in early America, has been asked by his department  to write a detailed defense of his research for the book.  The 2000 book, ''Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture,''  won the prestigious Bancroft Prize for history, but a story last month in the  Globe appeared to confirm a pattern of questionable research claims.  ''What is important is that he defend himself and the integrity of his  scholarship immediately,'' said James Melton, Emory history department  chairman. ''Depending upon his reponse, the university will respond  appropriately.''  Melton added, ''If there is prima facie evidence of scholarly misconduct, the  university has to conduct a thorough investigation. Whether it be a purely  internal inquiry, or the university brings in distinguished scholars in the field,  will depend on how Michael responds. It is important that he be accorded due  process.''  Bellesiles's book argued that few Americans had owned guns in early  America, and that more than half of those that were owned were old or  broken. The book set off a storm of protest by gun-owner organizations, but  independent scholars also raised serious questions about the veracity of  Bellesiles's research. The Globe story confirmed allegations that San  Francisco probate records, which Bellesiles had cited in his book as one of  his sources, had been destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and fire. It also  confirmed that an article by Bellesiles on his Web site, defending his work,  misstated the contents of some 18th-century Vermont probate records.  Melton, in a telephone interview yesterday, said, ''I advised him that he  needed to find a public professional forum where he would give a full and  complete response to the allegations against him.'' Melton's letter to Bellesiles  asked for ''a detailed point by point response.''  Bellesiles, responding by e-mail to a request for comment by the Globe,  confirmed he will write a response in the quarterly newsletter of the  Organization of American Historians. He wrote, ''I am trying to treat errors in  an honest, scholarly, and non-confrontational form.''  David Mehegan can be reached by e-mail at d-mehegan@globe.com.  This story ran on page C5 of the Boston Globe on 10/3/2001. © Copyright  2001 Globe Newspaper Company
ADDITIONAL ARTICLE:

''Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture''  debunked by Boston Globe
 

New doubts about gun historian, Research to receive hard critique today By  David Mehegan, Globe Staff, 9/11/2001  The Article in part:  When Emory University historian Michael A. Bellesiles published his  sweeping historical study of guns in Colonial America last fall, the reaction  was electric.
His thesis that guns were relatively rare in Colonial households, and that the  American ''gun culture'' didn't take hold until long after the Founding Fathers  drafted the Second Amendment's ''right to bear arms,'' was immediately hailed  by gun control advocates and by a host of historians impressed by his bold  rewriting of conventional wisdom.
Today, at Harvard Law School, Bellesiles's most adamant critic,  Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren, plans to detail  evidence that Bellesiles may have stretched or distorted the historical record  in trying to prove his claim.
The Boston Globe has reviewed substantial portions of records Lindgren will  cite: 18th-century probate records in Vermont and Rhode Island. The Globe  has also checked into Bellesiles's claim to have studied certain records in San  Francisco, records county officials say were destroyed by fire in 1906. In each  case, the records appear to support Lindgren's accusation and suggest a  disturbing pattern of misuse of data by Bellesiles in his book and in an article  defending his thesis which he published on his Web site.  Separately, in his review of Rhode Island records, Bellesiles writes in his  book that of 186 estates of ''property-owning adult males'' in Colonial  Providence, only 90 listed guns, and ''more than half of these guns are  evaluated as old and of poor quality.''
Lindgren found that 17 of the estates were not of men but women. He also  found that among 153 males whose estates included inventories, 94 mentions  guns. But only nine of those are listed as old or in disrepair.
A Globe review of some of the Providence records, on file at Boston  Athenaeum, appears to confirm Lindgren's findings. There were many estates  of women among those Bellesiles cites, and few indicated guns in poor  condition.
''There are many questions raised about his use of probate records and other  materials,'' says Brandeis historian David Hackett Fischer, an authority on  early America. ''They are very serious criticisms. It cuts to the very foundation  of what he reports, and convincing answers are not coming from him.''

10. THE FINAL REPLY FROM THE GOSHEN LIBRARY, (also sent to other libraries in the Ramapo Catskill Library System):

Last spring, a patron challenged the inclusion of the book Arming America: the origins of a national gun culture, by Michael Bellesiles in our collection. I am sharing a summary of the issues, as several of your libraries own the book as well.
 

Although the book had won the Bancroft Prize for history and was well reviewed for its original hypothesis, the nature of the research was challenged by James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School. The story was reported in the Boston Globe In September 2001, and Lindgren published an article in the Yale Law Review in April 2002. Emory University, Bellesile's (Emeritus Professor of History) employer convened an Investigatory Committee charged with determining if he had fabricated and/or falsified the research. The Committee reported in July 2002 , finding that he had done so and that he had "deviated from accepted practices of reporting the results of research". On October 25, Emory University accepted Professor Bellesile's resignation.

This seems to me to transcend the allegations of plagiarism against Goodwin and Ambrose. I am honoring the patron's request and withdrawing the book from Goshen's collection.
. T --
Pauline J. Kehoe, Director
Goshen Public Library and Historical Society
203 Main Street, Goshen, NY 10924
845-294-6606, x.7
"The test of our progress is ... whether we provide enough for those who have too little." FDR
 
 


ADDITIONAL LINKS
I will add additional links as I find them.

• http://www.emorywheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/11/19/3dd99ce649c3c From The Emory Wheel, Organizations will consider taking away Bellesiles' awards, By Sarah Mendola, Staff Writer, November 19, 2002. Columbia University (N.Y.), which awarded the book the prestigious Bancroft Prize in history, and the Organization of American Historians, which gave Bellesiles an award for a 1996 essay that formed the basis of Arming America, said they are considering revoking their prizes.
•  http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/book_remove-25Nov02.htm  From MidHudsonNews.com

Book removed from local library shelves.
     A Washingtonville man has persuaded the Goshen Library to pull a book off its shelves, which inaccurately portrays a part of American history.
     George Rogero, who heads Orange County Shooters, an organization that provides information about the licensing and use of firearms, brought information about "Arming of America" by Michael Bellesiles to the library.
     Bellesiles, and his book, have been widely discredited, even among liberal gun control advocates who once touted the book.
     Rogero said the book was discredited for its fabricated information about the arming of America while in its infancy stages.
     Rogero said he is sorry that he had to ask a library to remove a book. “I don’t take any pleasure in requesting any book to be removed from a library; however, when a book is based on improper research and other students are going to the library and are going to be doing research, if the book is there, they are going to be using it as valid information,” he said.
The library sent a note to other libraries in the Hudson Valley pointing to its decision.
• AUDIO REPORT NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO. (NPR)  http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/me/20020304.me.03.ram  Mar. 4, 2002  Emory University historian Michael Bellesiles is being challenged by fellow scholars over his celebrated book, Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture. They say the book is inaccurate and possibly fraudulent. NPR's Eric Westervelt reports. (7:02)
•  AUDIO REPORT NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO. (NPR)  http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/fa/20000926.fa.02.ram  Sep. 26, 2000, Professor Michael A. Bellesiles on the history of gun culture in America. His new book, Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture looks at our country's obsession with guns. Historically, he says it began around the civil war. Before that, there was virtually no access to firearms. His research refutes the conventional lore that Colonial families were armed, and that the gun was the symbol of the frontier. Bellesiles is a Colonial historian at Emory University, and the Director of Emory's Center for the Study of Violence.
•  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375701982/qid=1039452837/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-6531017-5517455?v=glance&s=books#product-details   AMAZON.COM has this book listed at a 30% discount.  If you look, they have the first 29 pages of the book that you can read on the internet.
• COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY'S BOARD OF TRUSTEES VOTES TO RESCIND THE 2001 BANCROFT PRIZE

PRIZE HAD BEEN AWARDED TO MICHAEL BELLESILES FOR HIS BOOK ARMING AMERICA: THE ORIGINS OF A NATIONAL GUN CULTURE
Contact:Eileen Murphy, Columbia University, emm2103@columbia.edu, (212)854-5573

    Columbia University's Trustees have voted to rescind the Bancroft Prize awarded last year to Michael Bellesiles for his book Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture.  The Trustees made the decision based on a review of an investigation of charges of scholarly misconduct against Professor Bellesiles by Emory University and other assessments by professional historians.  They concluded that he had violated basic norms of scholarship and the high standards expected of Bancroft Prize winners.  The Trustees voted to rescind the Prize during their regularly scheduled meeting on December 7, 2002 and have notified Professor Bellesiles of their decision.
    The Bancroft Prize, which was first offered in 1948, is to be awarded for works in American history of "distinguished merit and distinction." The selection criteria for the Prize specify that it "should honor only books of enduring worth and impeccable scholarship that make a major contribution to our  understanding of the American past."  Professor Bellesiles' book seemed to fulfill these criteria at the time of selection.  However, it has since been the subject of substantial debate within the community of American historians that included charges that Professor Bellesiles had committed scholarly misconduct in the use of some of his primary source materials.
    In response to these charges, Emory University, where Professor Bellesiles holds an appointment, established a panel of three distinguished scholars from other universities to conduct a review. On October 25, 2002, following this review, the panel issued a report.  In it, the panel members found "evidence of falsification" with respect to one of the questions they were asked to consider; spoke of "serious failures of and carelessness in the gathering and
presentation of archival records and the use of quantitative analysis" on two others; and questioned "his veracity" with respect to a fourth.  They also concluded that he had "contravened" the norms of historical scholarship both "as expressed in the Committee charge and in the American Historical Association's definition of  scholarly 'integrity.'"
    Columbia's Trustees considered the report of the Emory investigating committee and Professor Bellesiles' response to it.  They also considered assessments by professional historians of the subject matter of that report.
    After considering all of these materials, the Trustees concurred with the three distinguished scholars who reviewed the case for Emory University that Professor Bellesiles had violated basic norms of acceptable scholarly conduct.  They consequently concluded that his book had not and does not meet the standards they had established for the Bancroft Prize.
    In making their decision, the Trustees emphasized that the judgment to rescind the Bancroft Prize was based solely on the evaluation of the questionable scholarship of the work and had nothing to do with the book's content or the author's point of view.
 

• Columbia Rescinds History Prize for Book

By Hillel Italie, Associated Press Writer, Friday, December 13, 2002; 5:01 PM
    NEW YORK –– Severe doubts about a book on guns in the United States has led Columbia University to rescind the prestigious Bancroft Prize for history.
    "Arming America," by Michael Bellesiles, had received the award in 2001.
    In a statement released Friday, Columbia said that the school's trustees had concluded "his book had not and does not meet the standards ... established for the Bancroft Prize." Columbia has asked Bellesiles to return the prize money, $4,000.
    It was the first time in the 54-year history of the Bancroft award that Columbia has taken such actions. Phone and e-mail messages left by The Associated Press with Bellesiles were not immediately returned.
    Bellesiles resigned in October as a professor at Emory University, after an independent panel of scholars strongly criticized his research. In May, the National Endowment for the Humanities withdrew its name – although not its funding – from a fellowship given to Bellesiles. (pronounced Bell-EEL).
    Bellesiles has acknowledged some errors, but defends his book as fundamentally sound. "I have never fabricated evidence of any kind nor knowingly evaded my responsibilities as a scholar," he said after announcing his resignation.
    The historian spent 10 years working on "Arming America," published by Alfred A. Knopf in 2000. The book challenges the idea that the United States has always been a gun-oriented culture and that well-armed militias were essential to the Revolutionary War.
    Relying on numerous sources, Bellesiles writes that only a small percentage of people possessed firearms in colonial times and that militias were mostly ineffective. Only after the Civil War, he contends, did guns become vital.
    "Arming America" was praised in both The New York Times and The New York Review of Books and won the Bancroft Prize, presented to works of "exceptional merit and distinction in the fields of American history and biography."
    Many cited it as a devastating statement against America's alleged historical love affair with firearms.
    Gun advocates quickly attacked the book, with National Rifle Association president, actor Charlton Heston, complaining that Bellesiles had "too much time on his hands."
    But scholars and critics also became skeptical. In October, Emory released a 40-page study that concluded Bellesiles was "guilty of unprofessional and misleading work."
    The report, written by scholars from Harvard and Princeton universities and the University of Chicago, said Bellesiles' failure to cite sources for crucial data "does move into the realm of 'falsification.'" It also suggested he omitted other researchers' data that contradicted his arguments.
    "The Bancroft judges operate on a basis of trust," said Eric Foner, a past winner and a history professor at Columbia who has served as a prize judge, although not in 2001. "We assume a book published by a reputable press has gone through a process where people have checked the facts. Members of prize committees cannot be responsible for that."
    Knopf said in a statement Friday it regretted "the circumstances that prompted Columbia University to rescind the Bancroft," but respected the committee's decision. The paperback edition from Vintage Books, which already includes corrections, will remain in print.
    Columbia said Friday that trustees concurred with the scholars commissioned by Emory and found that Bellesiles had "violated basic norms of acceptable scholarly conduct." NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam praised Columbia's decision as "appropriate."
    Previous winners of the Bancroft Prize include such influential works as C. Vann Woodward's "Origins of the New South," Foner's "Reconstruction" and Bernard Bailyn's "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution."
© 2002 The Associated Press
 
• Bellesiles's Case Shows Need For Institutional Reform In Bancroft Committee And Columbia History Department

December 18, 2002, COLUMBIA COLLEGE CONSERVATIVE CLUB
conservative@columbia.edu, www.columbia.edu/cu/conservative, Contact: Ron Lewenberg, Phone: (646) 824-9215
     Ever since Columbia University announced its choice of Michael Bellesiles as a 2001 Bancroft Award winner for "Arming America: The History of a National Gun Culture," they have been under increasing pressure to re-evaluate their position due to the historical inaccuracies and irregular research methodology in the book. Between the announcement and presentation of the Bancroft Award, the committee had willfully ignored all evidence of flaws in the work and thereafter had defended the author. Only after Emory University suspended Professor Bellesiles, did Columbia University seriously look into the matter. Despite the 18 months of consistent criticism, Columbia has apparently learned nothing. Its modus operandi has been to belittle criticism of the work and then to engage in damage control.
     The Trustees of Columbia may have rescinded the prize, but they did it quietly, too quietly. To ensure minimal press coverage and student response, they released the statement on a Friday immediately preceding the undergraduate exam season. Most notably, the notice is not available on the Columbia web site. Likewise, the Trustees failed to inform the Columbia community or involved student groups. They barely acknowledge their mistake in their press release and went out of their way to protect their ideological bona fides.
     "In making their decision, the Trustees emphasized that the judgment to rescind the Bancroft Prize was based solely on the evaluation of the questionable scholarship of the work and had nothing to do with the book's content or the author's point of view," they wrote.
     The truth is that had the Trustees enforced this standard in the committee choosing Bancroft Award nominees and winners, Bellesiles would never have gotten the award. However, the ideological make-up of the committee precluded honest appraisals of candidates' submissions. To the best of our knowledge, this problem continues unabated. There is no incentive for a member to question an author/historian, with whom he or she agrees (especially one who has gotten good reviews from the establishment (liberal) media). It is no coincidence that each of the 2001 award winners wrote leftist revisionist books, as is evidenced by their profiles published at http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/01/04/bancroft.html
The decisions of the Trustees, the History Department, and the Bancroft Award committee have clearly damaged the reputation of the University, its many prizes, and that of the late Secretary of State and donor to Columbia, Frederic Bancroft.
     The only way to prevent the recurrence of this fiasco is to promote ideological diversity on the selection committees. Ideological conflict between a reviewer and writer is the best way to ensure that the author's work will be properly vetted. Evenhandedness and professionalism are not valued in the politically correct atmosphere of academia. This applies as much to departments as to committees at Columbia and other universities.
     For the sake of these institutions and students at Columbia, there must be true academic integrity, if not outright ideological balance in the Bancroft Award Committee and the History Department. The nomination process for the Bancroft Award and other prizes needs to be publicized so that interested third parties can expose flawed nominees. If the Bancroft Award and other honors presented by Columbia are to have any significance, they must be based on merit and fact, not ideological preference.
     Finally, the Bellesiles Committee, and the History Department must explain how they could grant Bellesiles the Bancroft award despite the widespread criticism of Bellesiles "questionable scholarship" practices. In the days between the announcement of the award winners and the ceremony, the Columbia College Conservative Club informed members of the Bancroft Award committee, and then the larger History Department of the factual and methodological failings of "Arming America," only to be systematically ignored. Likewise, hundreds of concerned Americans and Columbia Alumni contacted the university after Kimberly Strassel broke the story in the Wall Street Journal two weeks before the award ceremony. There has been an institutional failure at every level including (but not limited to) the offices of Alumni Relations and Public Affairs, professors in the History Department, and finally, those with the ultimate responsibility: the University President and the Trustees.
     The failure of the Columbia Trustees to properly oversee the History Department and the Bancroft Award committee suggests that the ideological corruption of the university has reached its highest levels and the institution must be structurally reformed. George Rupp, the former president of the university, was clearly negligent on this matter. It is our sincere hope that President Bollinger can put aside his well-publicized ideological biases and promote balance and openness in his oversight role.
     Columbia has been taken over by a system that favors proper political views and politicking over academic and historical standards. There needs to be significant structural and personnel reforms in the university staff, History Department, and Trustees.
     Our ultimate cry is for academic integrity, and we demand that it be heeded.
-End-
Interview Contact:
Nazar Khodorovsky                          Ron Lewenberg
Acting President                                Founder, President 1999-2001
Conservative@columbia.edu             r_lewenberg@yahoo.com

• 1/1/03 What Is Knopf Waiting For?  By Jerome Sternstein, Professor Emeritus of History, Brooklyn College, CUNY, and co-editor of The Encyclopedia of American Biography. This article asks why the book is still being published and attacks the Alfred A. Knopf company, the publisher of the original book and a new paper back edition that was "corrected" but contains as many errors and some of the corrections were corrected with errors and ask why the publisher did not question some of the know errors and problems with the book.
"And if the editors at Knopf think that all of the concerns about Arming America's questionable scholarship which can be raised have been raised, they are in for a nasty surprise. More articles and studies about its stunning evidentiary flaws and problems are in the pipeline with others in the early stages of development. Justin L. Heather, for example, who co-authored with James Lindgren, "Counting Guns in Early America" in the William and Mary Law Review, the study which first exposed Bellesiles's misrepresentation of probate records, will soon publish in the Journal of Law and Politics a devastating analysis of how Bellesiles misrepresented the use of bladed weapons, knives, and axes in his sources. Clayton Cramer has a book-length manuscript, "Armed America: Firearms Ownership and Hunting in the United States," detailing Bellesiles's many fabrications about that subject ready for publication and he is still compiling lists of gunsmiths which give the lie to much of what Bellesiles says about their scarcity in Early America."
• National Review Online, Disarming America One of the worst cases of academic irresponsibility in memory. By Melissa Seckora, NR editorial associate, October 15, 2001 issue, Originally posted September 11, 2001
"Those who have examined Arming America have documented hundreds of possibly intentional misconstructions of sources or outright falsehoods. The probate records aside, Bellesiles has egregious problems in the areas of homicide data, gun censuses, reports on militia arms, hunting accounts, travel accounts, the opinions of the anti-Federalists, and laws governing guns. So far it appears that Bellesiles has not been able to validate any of the challenged portions of his book."
• "Pulped" Fiction: Michael Bellesiles and His Yellow Note Pads, By Jerome Sternstein, (This is a great article and worth the time to read.")
"I tried the same experiment, running the tub faucet, as opposed to the shower head, at full force over another pad for a half an hour, and then six of them stacked on top of each other, for another half hour. None of the pads were badly damaged. All remained completely usable after drying and the pencil marks were easily legible."
• Were the colonists gun-haters? Geoff Metcalf interviews Second Amendment historian Joyce Malcolm.   Editor's note: Dr. Joyce Malcolm, a professor and historian, wasn't convinced of the assertions made by Professor Michael Bellesiles in his book, "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture." Bellesiles claims that the American colonists did not, by and large, own or value firearms. In her critique of Bellesiles' work in Reason Magazine, Malcolm takes on his research methods, conclusions and use of selective information. As the author of "To Keep and Bear Arms: The origin of an Anglo-American Right," Malcolm has an extensive background in early American history and the development of the Second Amendment. WorldNetDaily writer and talk show host Geoff Metcalf recently interviewed Malcolm about her criticism of Bellesiles' book and his controversial conclusions.
• Soft Skull Press to publish Bellesiles discredit book. "Arming of America" CLICK HERE FOR THE SOFT SKULL PRESS RELEASE IN PDF     Soft Skull Press who bills itself as a publisher of "fearless, progressive, independently minded literature, ..." has decided to publish another edition of "Arming America." Based in Brooklyn, NY, publisher of other famous books like BOMB THE SUBURBS by William Upski Wimsatt author of No More Prisons, The Pres. George W. Bush bashing book, FORTUNATE SON: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President, What the F**k and You Don't Have to F**k People Over to Survive. They do defend the book but are forced to call upon a contribution editor for The Nation in order to find someone who will do it and as Publisher Richard Nash states, “It is imperative that we stand up to the NRA smear machine."
       No one address the statement by the Contra Costa County Historical Society, "Last, we cannot confirm that Professor Bellesiles did substantial research in our collection in 1993 (as he claims) or at any other time before his visit in January, 2002. We do not remember him visiting our collection before his recent visit. We have searched our log books and invoices for the years 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 and find no record for research fees or photocopies. Further, we are not cited or acknowledged in his book, something we always expect and receive."
• http://www.reason.com/0303/fe.jm.disarming.shtml  

Ramapo Catskill Library System Status as of 12/3/02
Library	Call No	Shelf area	Status	contacted	status
GOSHEN PUB LIB	363.33 Bel	NON-FICTION (ADULT)	checked In	April, 02	will remove
CORNWALL LIB	363.33 Bellesiles	NON-FICTION (ADULT)	checked In
PORT JERVIS FREE LIBRARY	363.33 BEL	NON-FICTION (ADULT)	checked In
NEWBURGH FREE LIB	363.33 BEL	NON-FICTION (ADULT)	checked In
TUSTEN-COCHECTON BRANCH (NARROWSBURRG)- WSPL	363.3 Bel	FICTION (ADULT)	checked In
NEW CITY LIB	363.330973 Bel	NON-FICTION (ADULT)	checked In
NYACK LIB	363.33 Bel	NON-FICTION (ADULT)	checked In
PEARL RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY	323.4 BEL	NON-FICTION (ADULT)	In Technical services	12/3/02	Send letter
FINKELSTEIN MEM LIB	363.33 BEL	NON-FICTION (ADULT)	checked In
VALLEY COTTAGE FREE LIB	363.33 BEL	NON-FICTION (ADULT)	checked In
WEST NYACK FREE LIB	363.33 Bel	NON-FICTION (ADULT)	In Technical services	12/3/02	looking into it

CLICK HERE FOR ORANGE COUNTY NY SHOOTERS HOME PAGE OCShooters.com