Talk:A. J. P. Taylor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I can never remember the conventions for biograpical entries, but shouldn't this be at AJP Taylor? That's what everybody knows him as. Tannin
Whatever the conventions are, I definately agree. I saw the article on my watchlist and took a moment to register why it was on my watchlist at all. "Alan John Perci... who?" -- Sam wot is taylors ihistoriagraphical postition
This article needs more headings. Ben Finn 20:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Political leanings
I disagree with this comment - "Throughout his life, Taylor was basically sympathetic to the Soviets". I quote from Europe: Grandeur and Decline - "Democracy will show itself ever more fertile and constructive and Communism will be shown for the barren thing it is" and "either the Russians abandon all their fear, disarm at once, drop their suport of Communism, or else there is no alternative but World War III."
"Fawning" biography of Beaverbrook, not neutral too much point of view if the person wants to critise the book on the basis it is biased then do so, otherwise omit the expression as I have done Backnumber1662 23:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Backnumber1662
I disagree with the description of A.J.P. Taylor as a "socialist". A reading of the introduction he wrote for The Communist Manifesto (printed 1967, published by Penguin Books) clearly marks him as a supporter of capitalism. He is critical of Marx and Engels, describing them as confused and pointing out apparent contradictions in their theories. 220.239.115.43 11:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Sukrit
You do know that you can be influenced by socialist theory and be a socialist without supporting the views of Marx and/or Engels. Secondly, Taylor, self-addmittingly, stated when he left the British Communist party that he did so because it was not radical enough for him. mpearse 22:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The following sentence is used 'Taylor championed less government secrecy and perhaps ironically for a staunch leftist, fought for more privately-owned television stations.' This is heavily laden with political bias. It is not a contradiction to be on the left and wish for a plurality of free speech. In fact freedom is a central tenet of socialism. Kiern Moran
[edit] Monty Python
He was also mentioned by name in the cult classic, Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail, more evidence of his fame with the general public,
First place, wrong move title, but I think whoever wrote this may be confusing Holy Grail with the "world of history" episode of Flying Circus where Carol Cleveland (I think) in lingerie and the voice of a man play the role of historian A.J.P. Taylor. Does anybody know for sure? john k 07:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
No, Holy Grail had someone who looked like Taylor but was simply named "A HISTORIAN". In the Monty Python and the Holy Grail Booki, he was listed as "the historian who isn't A.J.P. Taylor" and his wife as "the historian who isn't A.J.P. Taylor's (honestly!) wife".
[edit] Clean-up?
I was just looking at the article... and thought, that it would need some cleanup. The article is a huge block of text; more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. Possibly subheadings would do the trick? Does anyone else think the same? --85.49.229.165 20:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, this needs to be sorted out, I think first of all we need to agree on what subheading should be used (eg. early life, other bits of life, political leanings, family life, works etc etc) and then people can get to work at cleaning it up. --Horses In The Sky 17:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I think it's one of the better articles on Wikipedia. Just don't make the subheadings too distracting. Njál 15:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Since Taylor wrote about so many different periods, including his work on events during his own lifetime, it would be best to (at the very least) separate this into one "Works" section and one "Life" section. The way the man wrote about history changed significantly throughout his life, but they are not so intimately tied as to be inseparable.
Good God this is long and boring. It MUST be split up for ease of general reference. Most people (I suspect) want to have a brief rundown of Taylor's life/career, and not an in depth analysis of everything he ever wrote. Can't we split it along theory lines, i.e.e his thoughts on different works/topics? Megawattbulbman 15:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree...this article reads well, but the whole concept of the block of text is not very attractive to readers wanting to just find facts about 'the man'. I do like that idea of splitting it into areas of debate/views on certain issues/events.
[edit] Origins of the Second World War Eurocentric?
More recently, Taylor has been criticized together with many other historians of his generation for perpetuating what many modern historians now regard as shop-worn myths in The Origins of the Second World War. It has been argued that Taylor's account is Euro-centric. Through Taylor mentioned Japanese aggression against China and fighting along the Soviet-Manchurian border, he largely focused on developments in Europe at the expense of developments in the Far East.
In the introduction to the American edition Taylor tackles the point head on - his book is about why war broke out between Germany, Britain and France on 3rd September 1939 and acknowledges that in other countries "the Second World War" is considered to have started at other points - 1941 for the US and 1937 for China. (Indeed even in Europe the British, and I presume the French, think the war began on September 3rd despite the Germans and Poles having been fighting for forty-eight hours at that point.) I'm not sure if this criticism mentioned is that he didn't address the origins of war in the Far East (which was never the focus of the book - the problem is perhaps the title but it's too famous a book to retitle for a modern/international audience) or that events there had a major influence on events in Europe. Timrollpickering 01:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely correct. This "criticism" is totally without grounds and, I see, without attribution. I think it's safe to slice. Albrecht 00:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
