Talk:A. J. P. Taylor

Untitled
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)

Quotations to Wikiquote?
Is it not favourable that the inline quotations be moved to Wikiquote and cited from there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.67.222 (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Irony over ignoring speed limits
It says this;

"I have been driving a car for 45 years. I have consistently ignored all the various speed limits. Never once have I encountered the slightest risk as a result."

Then much further down, the article reads:

"Taylor was badly injured in 1984 when he was run over by a car while crossing Old Compton Street in London."

Certainly ironic, so that irony could be mentioned in the article? Is it known if the car that hit him was speeding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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) It was The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra Goes to the Bathroom. (I'm new to Wikipedia, am I doing this right?) TomHinde (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2015 (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".

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.
 * There also needs to be a sub heading within Origins about not only his revisionist defence of appeasement, but the criticisms that he also had with Chamberlain and the way appeasement was soemtimes carried out. It actually encompasses quite a few points on the topic but this text seems to focus mainly on the revisionist controversies that were created. - Whatman, 27 Aug 07

Move material elsewhere?
The long section on The Origins of the Second World War ought to be moved to an article on that book, The Origins of the Second World War - one we don't seem to have yet, although we ought to have one. If no one objects, I'll create one, and move this text, at some point. Noel (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

.                                     I think the point here is more a historiographic debate on where lines of arguments come, In Taylor's Origins it's pointing out his arguments were probably influenced by focusing on European evidence, which of course was his aim, but the postmodern theory wishes to highlight how purpose and certain perspectives influence history. -Whatman, 27 August 2007

Wikipedia is not for publishing essays
The bane of Wikipedia: people who use Wikipedia to "publish" their school papers. A previous poster had it right -- this is more like an essay than an article. It's long-winded and filled with opinionating and unsourced assertions, too many to enumerate here -- not a single footnote! I'll try to clean it up and add citation tags, but it's still a huge, pompous mess. No way this is a "Class-B" article, and I think "Class-C" is being generous. J M Rice (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is true that this is more an essay, but otherwise I don´t agree with Rice. For me, it is not "long-winded", I found it certainly not pompous, but rather very readable and constructive, even if I would see the subject a little differently here and there. The article is I think comparatively even-handed, which is laudable considering how much AJP has gone out of fashion, at least in his own country. Those worknig on this paper have put good work in and they don´t deserve to have their work disparaged as a "school paper". I´ve just checked the history of the article and am relieved that Rice did not follow up his intention (or maybe threat...) to "clean up" - for someone who says "opinionating" when meaning "opinionated" should maybe leave off changing the text.
 * Also, it is very easy to sprinkle "citation needed" tags over the text, making it unreadable. The key is "add citations where appropriate". Compromiso (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Filling an article with with fact tags may not be constructive, but it would show just what needs to be done. The article needs inline citations for anything that could be challenged (see WP:V). What needs to be done is for someone to get a biography of AJP and start adding some citations to the article. Nev1 (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

leftwing bias
I´ve deleted the sentence:
 * However, Taylor's view can be considered as biased, as he (being left-wing) was naturally against the conservative nature of Otto von Bismarck.

Taylor was too much of an idiosyncratic leftwinger to be "naturally" against Bismark, any more than he was "naturally" in favour of and against appeasement. It he had been right-wing he would have had an equally probable chance of being biased. It´s therefore simplest to delete the sentence than get involved in debates on bias and neutrality. Compromiso (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, best removed. Nev1 (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Leaving Oxford??
"Taylor was a tutor in modern history at Magdalen College, Oxford, from 1938 to 1963 and a research fellow there until 1976." - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/584783/A-J-P-Taylor

I don't know how this ties in with Oxford "refusing to renew his term" or whether becoming a fellow and tutor are precisely the same, but it seems explain the current "Steve Mann says" bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterBiddlecombe (talk • contribs) 14:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not 100% sure how fellowships work as Oxford but I think a fellowship there is a position that is distinct from a day-to-day tutorship. The latter one can be sacked from, the former is much harder. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Structure
I'm going to attempt to structure this article along the same lines as the one for Niall Ferguson - career, subject matter, criticisms, personal life, bibliography. There is no proper structure at the moment. Neelmack (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. Please add in refs too if you have them. Span (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Of Scottish Descent?
I'm tempted to add a 'citation needed' for the assertion that Taylor is of Scottish descent. Sisman's biography states that Taylor's grandfather Edmund Taylor "arrived in the country from Scotland" - I'm guessing the reference came from that source. However, my grandfather was a paternal cousin of Taylor and I know from our family history that Edmund was born in Rochdale, Lancashire. Of course, I fully understand we have to base Wikipedia on authoritative published sources so I've no qualms with this myth about Scottish ancestry remaining, as long as the source is stated. Hope that pedantic explanation is of use!! Sionk (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

New introduction and first inline citation
I have rewritten the introduction and, amazingly considering its length, added the first inline citation of the entire article. That said, lack of citations aside, most of it is quite well written, readable, and seems to cover all of the many aspects of his life. It has been suggested before that the article be split between life and work. I will make a start on this in the near future. So I would appreciate any help in the form of criticism, suggestions, sources, and things that should be removed or added, etc.--John Allen (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

New format, rewording and inline citations
I have implemented some of the changes suggested above, listing below the alterations made.


 * Format
 * Public intellectual renamed Opinions, and moved from a subsection of Biography to become a new section between Work and Criticisms. The appropriate subsections from Biography and Work moved into the new Opinions section, with Biography renamed Life. This completes the separation of Life and Work, suggested in 2006 but only partially completed until now.


 * Rewording and inline citations
 * Minor rewording in Early life, unsourced headmasters description removed, replaced with a sourced quote from Bootham contemporary Geoffrey Barraclough, and inline citation added for Labour Party membership. Book reviews and newspaper columns renamed Journalism and expanded with inline citations. Television renamed Broadcasting, and expanded to include radio.--John Allen (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Works Section
I think that this section needs to be looked at, particularly the first couple of books. It looks like the description of these books turns into a discussion of a completely different book or aspect of Taylor's life in the middle of the section. Either the sections should be split up, or the headings should be changed to more accurately depict what is in the section. Cenna22 (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinions
"in a 1976 speech in Dublin that it would be best for Britain if London would agree to let the IRA, whom he regarded as freedom-fighters, expel the entire Protestant Unionist population of Northern Ireland in the same manner that the Czechoslovak government had expelled the ethnic Germans of the Sudetenland after the Second World War." There is no citation attached to this statement which, in the circumstances, would have been highly contentious in 1976. Should this stand? --Gepid (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The source seems to be Adam Sisman's 1994 "A.J.P. Taylor: a biography" on p. 378. I don't have access to the book so I can't verify the reference. There's also a reference on p. 45 of "In Search of Solutions: The Problem of Religion and Conflict" by Clinton Bennett but it's unsourced - I suspect he got it from Sisman whose biography is, as far as I can tell, the only one to mention his support for expulsion. I suspect Wrigley et al. aren't very keen to write about that particular aspect of Taylor's beliefs. Atchom 21:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I found a source for his comments from The Times.--Britannicus (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

festschrift "an extraordinary and rare honour"
source for this please? They seem in my experience (as a reader and researcher) to be fairly common. --134.153.14.79 (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC) ps if the word is italicized, and pluralized as in German, shouldn't it be capitalized, as it is in the article Festschrift? --134.153.14.79 (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

"It was suggested that he had an affair with Kitty Muggeridge"
By whom? The only source for this section "personal life" is his own "A Personal History" --134.153.14.79 (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I've removed it. "It has been suggested that" is not good enough, still no citation 2 years on from you raising the matter here and nothing on the web that I can find to give credence to the claim. I've also removed the uncited Margaret/Eve household sentence. Mattstan (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Useless reference - "Burk 2001"
There are several references to "Burk 2001", but no such work is listed. DuncanHill (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)