Pseudo-history, and related issues

[SigniferOne]

Cartledge himself, however, is a different matter. He has a job at a university and must therefore know the article by Weber. If he doesn't, this raises serious questions: how is it possible that someone lacking basic qualifications can obtain a job?

First, could you reference the work by Weber that deals with this? (I know that's stretching outside our topic.)

But more pertinently, why couldn't he have merely disagreed with the thesis you (and perhaps Weber) are putting forth? Why does making a different statement mean that he is lacking basic qualifications for being a historian, immediately becoming an author of pseudo-history? I think we are pushing the boundaries of our definitions here. Farrokh is clearly a disreputable historian -- from his motives as much as from the actual end result of his work. Another pseudo-historian, Western this time? Gavin Menzies. There is no reason he has not been mentioned so far yet, a clearly dishonest and disreputable person there. By what stretch of the imagination do we equate Cartledge to Gavin Menzies? We need to be careful not to categorize as pseudo-history an author with whom we merely disagree.