J. South and all-- I'd say a history amateur is anyone who studies, teaches, or writes about history in an amateurish way (and I use the term "amateur" in its current pejorative sense): that is, without doing their best to exercise the standards of intellectual rigor, completeness, accuracy, and, yes, objectivity (including anticipating and responding to counter-arguments) that constitute the principles of historical professionalism. Conversely, anyone who adheres to these standards is a professional historian, whether or not they have formal institutional affiliations or credentials. For instance, at the risk of embarrassing Henry, based on his publications I can point to him as a fine example of a professional historian, even though he's not in academia and I don't know whether or not he has a Ph.D. (the quality of his research and writing makes that irrelevant). On the other hand, the last several years have seen the exposure of a number of supposedly "professional" historians who jeopardized and in some cases destroyed their claims to professionalism by plagiarism or fraud, in print or in the classroom. In such instances, they were acting as history amateurs, something easy to overlook in a member of the general public but egregious in someone who has won public trust and personal income as an ostensible professional of the discipline. As the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say, "everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts"--and a stubborn fidelity to that distinction, however challenging or personally unwelcome, is perhaps the fundamental sign of the difference between amateur and professional history. Here endeth the historiographical sermon--which is itself, of course, merely a matter of my own opinion. --Jurretta On Apr 13, 2007, at 11:27 AM, Henry Wiencek wrote: > Read the "Discussion" pages for some of these Wiki entries, and you > will > find out. > > HW > >> What exactly is a history "amateur"? >> >> J South >> >