This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Norman Stone article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
No mention of the BHHRG? 86.136.88.187 00:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
"He has been much criticized for his public assurances during 2004 (notably in The Spectator and The Times Literary Supplement) that the Armenian genocide never occurred."
He made no such 'assurances' in either publication during his comments regarding flaws in evidence used in a book that was under review.
Stone has never denied that vast numbers of Armenians were slaughtered during forced deportations from Turkey in 1915; he does not even dispute the possibility that there was genocidal intent. What he does dispute is that there is unequivocal evidence of such intent, and in the absence of a smoking gun, prefers to stick to "massacres". http://arts.independent.co.uk/books/features/article2829372.ece
Indeed, Stone's comments in The Times Literary Supplement were in the feedback section of historian Andrew Mango's own review which itself made the exact same point.
The article can certainly reflect Stone's position, but should do so clinically. The current line presents as an appeal to ridicule.
Either post the 'assurances' or amend it.
I have removed the following: "The attack saw Stone lose considerable respect within the historical profession, and he became increasingly reliant upon his conservative connections. " as it seems to imply that any criticism of that late, great apologist for Soviet mass murder, namely E. H. Carr was highly damaging to Stone's career, and that any subsequent success Stone has enjoyed has been to political patronage of Margaret Thatcher rather than his scholarly abilities. Besides for being unreferenced, this claim is slanderous in the extreme. -- A.S. Brown ( talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Some of you may wish to participate in the discussion on renaming the category Armenian Genocide deniers to Armenian Genocide skeptics. The discussion is here. -- Anthon.Eff ( talk) 18:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
@ Mutt Lunker:
Compare these please. Could you do me the courtesy of actually reading my changes before you revert them, thanks. Hayek79 ( talk) 00:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Stone was subsequently accepted in 1984 as a Professor of Modern History at Oxford University, England. [1] Stone's tenure at Oxford was not without controversy. Petronella Wyatt wrote that Stone "loathed the place as petty and provincial, and for its adherence to the Marxist-determinist view of history." [2] He published a column in the Sunday Times between 1987 and 1992, and was also employed by the BBC, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, and the Wall Street Journal. [3] Stone became Margaret Thatcher's foreign policy advisor on Europe, [1] as well as her speech writer. [4]
Stone's tenure at Oxford was not without incident, largely based around his political views, which were considered to be highly conservative. Petronella Wyatt wrote that Stone "loathed the place as petty and provincial, and for its adherence to the Marxist-determinist view of history." [2] He published a regular column in the Sunday Times between 1987 and 1992, and helped comment for many news services, including the BBC, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, and the Wall Street Journal. [3]
Stone's reputation was affected by an obituary he wrote in 1983 for the London Review of Books of E. H. Carr, and which some felt bordered on defamatory. [5]
During this same time Stone also became Margaret Thatcher's foreign policy advisor on Europe, [1] as well as her speech writer. [4]
Whatever Chair Stone accepted at Oxford in 1984, it was neither the Regius Professorship nor the Chichele Professorship. I do not know what other Chair of Modern History was available for the taking. He probably taught there at some point. Pamour ( talk) 20:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Extremely negative and hostile obituary by leading historian Richard J. Evans in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jun/25/norman-stone-obituary -- Ef80 ( talk) 12:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I was a student of Stone's at Cambridge and although he was an entertaining lecturer, because mostly inebriated, he was a sexist bore who was fundamentally unhappy that women (and others, but mostly women) had the temerity to express opinions he didn't like. So no, not all his students thought he was wonderful, and Richard Evans has no cause to be 'professionally jealous' of anyone. 2A00:23C5:67D7:4B00:ED40:C47D:D8E:2D2F ( talk) 22:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
This is a shabby appeal to authority. Evans has a bit of a reputation for savaging dead historians who were contemporaries of his, not only Stone but also Lewis Namier. Why not make it clear that these are unsupported allegations of groping made after his death? On this matter, Evans cannot be considered a reliable source 81.147.81.80 ( talk) 12:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Ridiculously biased. It may follow the letter of wiki policies but certainly not the spirit. But then most people I know are well aware of the biases on Wikipedia. 37.154.146.198 ( talk) 10:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Grim Eminence
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Norman Stone article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
No mention of the BHHRG? 86.136.88.187 00:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
"He has been much criticized for his public assurances during 2004 (notably in The Spectator and The Times Literary Supplement) that the Armenian genocide never occurred."
He made no such 'assurances' in either publication during his comments regarding flaws in evidence used in a book that was under review.
Stone has never denied that vast numbers of Armenians were slaughtered during forced deportations from Turkey in 1915; he does not even dispute the possibility that there was genocidal intent. What he does dispute is that there is unequivocal evidence of such intent, and in the absence of a smoking gun, prefers to stick to "massacres". http://arts.independent.co.uk/books/features/article2829372.ece
Indeed, Stone's comments in The Times Literary Supplement were in the feedback section of historian Andrew Mango's own review which itself made the exact same point.
The article can certainly reflect Stone's position, but should do so clinically. The current line presents as an appeal to ridicule.
Either post the 'assurances' or amend it.
I have removed the following: "The attack saw Stone lose considerable respect within the historical profession, and he became increasingly reliant upon his conservative connections. " as it seems to imply that any criticism of that late, great apologist for Soviet mass murder, namely E. H. Carr was highly damaging to Stone's career, and that any subsequent success Stone has enjoyed has been to political patronage of Margaret Thatcher rather than his scholarly abilities. Besides for being unreferenced, this claim is slanderous in the extreme. -- A.S. Brown ( talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Some of you may wish to participate in the discussion on renaming the category Armenian Genocide deniers to Armenian Genocide skeptics. The discussion is here. -- Anthon.Eff ( talk) 18:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
@ Mutt Lunker:
Compare these please. Could you do me the courtesy of actually reading my changes before you revert them, thanks. Hayek79 ( talk) 00:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Stone was subsequently accepted in 1984 as a Professor of Modern History at Oxford University, England. [1] Stone's tenure at Oxford was not without controversy. Petronella Wyatt wrote that Stone "loathed the place as petty and provincial, and for its adherence to the Marxist-determinist view of history." [2] He published a column in the Sunday Times between 1987 and 1992, and was also employed by the BBC, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, and the Wall Street Journal. [3] Stone became Margaret Thatcher's foreign policy advisor on Europe, [1] as well as her speech writer. [4]
Stone's tenure at Oxford was not without incident, largely based around his political views, which were considered to be highly conservative. Petronella Wyatt wrote that Stone "loathed the place as petty and provincial, and for its adherence to the Marxist-determinist view of history." [2] He published a regular column in the Sunday Times between 1987 and 1992, and helped comment for many news services, including the BBC, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, and the Wall Street Journal. [3]
Stone's reputation was affected by an obituary he wrote in 1983 for the London Review of Books of E. H. Carr, and which some felt bordered on defamatory. [5]
During this same time Stone also became Margaret Thatcher's foreign policy advisor on Europe, [1] as well as her speech writer. [4]
Whatever Chair Stone accepted at Oxford in 1984, it was neither the Regius Professorship nor the Chichele Professorship. I do not know what other Chair of Modern History was available for the taking. He probably taught there at some point. Pamour ( talk) 20:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Extremely negative and hostile obituary by leading historian Richard J. Evans in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jun/25/norman-stone-obituary -- Ef80 ( talk) 12:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I was a student of Stone's at Cambridge and although he was an entertaining lecturer, because mostly inebriated, he was a sexist bore who was fundamentally unhappy that women (and others, but mostly women) had the temerity to express opinions he didn't like. So no, not all his students thought he was wonderful, and Richard Evans has no cause to be 'professionally jealous' of anyone. 2A00:23C5:67D7:4B00:ED40:C47D:D8E:2D2F ( talk) 22:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
This is a shabby appeal to authority. Evans has a bit of a reputation for savaging dead historians who were contemporaries of his, not only Stone but also Lewis Namier. Why not make it clear that these are unsupported allegations of groping made after his death? On this matter, Evans cannot be considered a reliable source 81.147.81.80 ( talk) 12:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Ridiculously biased. It may follow the letter of wiki policies but certainly not the spirit. But then most people I know are well aware of the biases on Wikipedia. 37.154.146.198 ( talk) 10:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Grim Eminence
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).