Talk:Hugh Trevor-Roper
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage. | ||
There seem to be discrepancies among the sources, regarding the following points:-
- date of marriage (1954 or 1957)
- wife's previous married name ("Howard-Johnston" or "Howard-Johnstone")
- number of children of wife (two or three)
Anyone happen to have easy access to Burke's Peerage or Who's Who...? :) -- Oliver PEREIRA 21:29 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
Burke's 1999 says:
- 1954, and, under "Haig", October 4, 1954
- Howard-Johnston
- 3: 2 sons, one daughter (listed under "Haig")
-- Someone else 21:38 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
Thank you ever so much for checking, Someone else. :) -- Oliver PEREIRA 21:42 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
--- The article is wrong to call the Hitler diaries crude fakes. They weren't crude at all. They were caught out through microscopic examination which revealed among other things that they were bound with a type of glue not manufactured in the 1940s. But there was nothing crude about the actual diaries, which to the eye, in the absence of scientific examination, looked genuine. In Trevor-Roper's defence, he said he judged them on their content, not binding, and initial readings left an impression in many readers that they were genuine and the discovery of the century. JTD 15:58 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)
You are may well be right. It is debatable. However, on reflection, I don't think this is the right place to report this controversy (whether the diaries were a crude fake or a sophisticated one) - it should go in the Hitler Diaries article. If you have no objection, I'll revert to your "proved by forensic examination to be a fake", and remove the tangential remark about glue, which I think disrupts the flow of the paragraph. GrahamN 16:31 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)
Sounds fine. JTD 18:17 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)
Why does this article title include his peerage title? He is not generally known by it. john k 02:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article refers to the "nadir of Dacre's career," etc., so it would seem that he was famous as "Lord Dacre of Glanton" as well. -- Emsworth 22:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Would it be worth mentioning Evelyn Waugh's attacks on T-R, because of the latter's overt anti-Catholicism? After all, it isn't every day that a world-famous novelist and a world-famous historian square off.
Depressing, the Wikipedia tendency to soften any criticism of Communism. HTR's forthright Encounter articles have to be watered down with the editorializing that well, off the record, you know, he really did think Koestler was too hard on Communism.... Come on. Quit interjecting yourself. Let HTR be who he was. Look at the Orwell article, which is similarly diluted. ~~Profhum
Contents |
[edit] new addition of African debate
I have added a section on Trevor-Roper and his claims about African history, which he made first in a lecture on BBC radio in 1963 and later in his book The Rise of Christian Europe (1965). This is a very important aspect of controversy about T-R, and I hope the way in which I have described the conflict is sufficient both in didactic voice, clarity, and neutrality. If there is any question as to the neutrality, please comment on the discussion board b/f editing things out, so we can have a debate over what constitutes a neutral position on this matter. It should be noted that T-R's claims have been completely discredited in the academic world; no one of any repute still holds to the "no African history" thesis, except perhaps a few isolated individuals. I welcome any suggestions anybody might have regarding the presentation of this issue in T-R's life.--Lrschum 19:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)lrschum
Related to the above commentary on the new section, after someone has had a chance to review it, do you think it should be a subsection of the academic controversy section or in its own section? It is rather lengthy.--Lrschum 19:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] new section
After looking over what I'd written, it seems it requires its own section so the African debate issue does not interfere with the academic controversy section above.Lrschum 00:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Racist
The word "racist" appears in the text. I want detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 1982
In 1982, in an article in the "Daily Telegraph", Trevor-Roper said that the Gaelic language was "obsolete". This led to a number of protests, often from native speakers of Gaelic in Scotland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
