You can't win, Dave. You do not know the rules and Keith will never tell you for fear of tying himself down to something he may regret later. Tying Keith down on what constitutes an historian is like trying to push butter up a porcupines arse with hot needle. On top of which, even if you did, he would never respond to what percentage of historians matching his secret criteria he has actualy read because he has no idea how many there are.

Best thing all round is either take Raggys's stance and wind him up or Musket's ploy of pointing out what Keith is, in no uncertain terms, at every opportunity. Alternatively you could just point out the errors in his logic which gets to him so much that he has no response but to ignore it, abuse you, or change the subject. Look, just watch what happens next.

Keith.
What is your criteria for an 'eminent historian'?
How many historians, worldwide, meet that criteria?
What percentage of their works have you read?

I have got 2 to 1 at Ladbrookes on the response...

:-D