Not only should the editor have run it by authorities in the field--the author should have been enmeshed in extensive and in depth correspondence with authorities in the field before writing one word on the subject. No matter how much of a handle we think we have on a subject, there is always something more. One quick vetting by just one or two contributors who can be easily found on this board would have saved a lot of embarrassment. I spent four years engaging in such correspondence, and a few lashings along the way, before I submitted my first piece for publishing. Looking back in my digital archives I see hundreds of emails relating to that earliest of work.

By the way, someone asked me if I am related to the author or know him. The answer is no on both counts. Like you all, I certainly am perturbed at the article--my opinions on proper historiography are well known here. And now erroneous information is probably going to find its way into other writings because of this.

This is a tough bunch on this board to have coming at you with long knives. All would-be historians who want to be seen as serious need to pay attention to the lesson here.