Talk:J. C. D. Clark

Ronald Hutton
The user known as HJ2B=! keeps on removing properly footnooted material from the article. If the material is "untrue and defamatory material", please present some evidence of this from a properly secondary source that establishes the so-called "personal animus of Ronald Hutton". Ronald Hutton is a historian, and if I understand the rules of Wikipedia correctly, we are supposed to follow the experts, not start deleting material that is properly cited to a proper source on the grounds that somebody happens to proclaim it to be untrue. The material from Hutton should only be removed if is widely established that he is not a good source. --A.S. Brown (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Spelling fix request: "degreee"
Someone added a third e to the word "degree" in the intro paragraph. A fix would be nice. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done RudolfRed (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Explanation
There is an user with the name of J.C.D. Clark who contributes to this page, who may very well be the subject of this article. In particular, the references based on the article "Revisionism in Britain" in The Companion to Historiography edited by Michael Bentley (London: Routledge, 1997)-which as far as I can tell is a RS-keeps getting deleted by the user J.C.D. Clark who insists that this is "false" and "defamatory" without providing any RS saying so. If may be true that Hutton is defaming Clark, but one needs a RS saying so. And note also that back in September 2006 that an IP from the University of Kansas-the same university that Clark teaches at-deleted the same material with the edit summary:"This never happened, and is defamatory. Jonathan Clark". This is absurd that statements properly referenced to a RS keep being deleted by a user who appears to the subject of the article who says this is false without providing a single RS to support his edits.

Moreover, Hutton is a British historian and the Companion to Historiography was published in 1997 by Routledge, a British publisher. The English libel law is (in)famously strict. If Hutton really did make up this story about how almost the entire staff of Cambridge University issued a public letter criticising Clark for his attacks on J.H. Plumb, which is what the user J.C.D. Clark keeps asserting this a "false" and "defamatory" statement about him, then that begs the question why the British historian Clark has not launched a libel suit against Hutton and Routledge. Which is rather odd coming from someone who judging from the edit history of this article is very concerned about "defamatory" statements about him. One does not have to live in England to launch a libel suit. Note the way in 2006 that a wealthy Saudi businessman named Khalid bin Mahfouz-who was not living in England-forced the Cambridge University Press to remove statements from the book Alms for Jihad stating he was a fund-raiser for al-Qaeda by threatening to launch a libel suit in an English court. And before that, the litigious Mr. bin Mahfouz successfully sued for libel in an English court an Israeli writer Rachel Ehrenfeld for her 2003 book Funding Evil who likewise claimed Mr. bin Mahfouz raised money for al-Qaeda, even through that book was published in the United States and only came under the purview of English libel law because 23 copies of Funding Evil had been purchased in Britain via Amazon. This is off-topic, but that was absurd that a Saudi man should be able to sue an Israeli-American author in England for a book published in the United States and that was only read by a tiny number of people in England, but that is the way English libel law works. Or just look at the way that the child molester Jimmy Savile was able to silence the media during his life-time by threatening to sue anybody for libel who raised concerns about his behavior. There is something really wrong here where a child molester like Savile can silence his critics via resorting to a libel suit. If the concerns about Savile had been aired during his life-time, maybe he would had been stopped or maybe he would not-but at very least, the chances of him being stopped would have been much greater. It is a shame the way that English libel law protects people like Savile-the media all knew that something wasn't right about him at least since the 1970s, but nobody dared to say a thing out of the fear of Savile winning a multi-million pound judgement against them, which again reflects the power of libel law in England. Anyhow, getting back to the topic at hand. Clark lives in the United States, but as a British historian, he would be well within his rights to launch a libel suit in an English court for a book published in London that contained "false" and "defamatory" statements about him.

The article "Revisionism in Britain" was published in The Companion to Historiography back in 1997, so Clark has had 21 years to sue Hutton and Routledge for libel for that statement, and as far I am aware, he has not. Either this public letter was issued or not. If it was not, then Clark should had an easy time winning a libel suit, which begs the obvious question why he has not. Given the strict nature of English libel law, it is very strange that a respectable publisher like Routledge and a historian like Hutton should engage in a libelous action by making up a "defamatory" story about Clark that could easily cost them millions of pounds. British publishers tended to err on the side of caution when comes to publishing unflattering information about living people that might cause a libel suit for precisely that reason. I have the feeling that the very fact that the book The Companion to Historiography was published in 1997 with the claim that a public letter was issued from the staff of Cambridge criticising Clark means that it did happen and that Hutton was not making up things about Clark. Anyhow, nobody has produced a RS saying so-all that we had so far are assertions from editors who appear to be Clark claiming that Hutton had made "defamatory" statements about Clark. --A.S. Brown (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I've restored it and added an attribution to a quote (all quotes need to be attributed to their author). Thanks for pointing this out. The article read more like a hagiography without it. Doug Weller  talk 12:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your good work. Much appreciated!--A.S. Brown (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * and again thanks for taking the time last May to research this. Feel free to contact me about any similar problems. Doug Weller  talk 10:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * there are people who would like the truth (or what they regard as the truth) to be known, but are neither rich nor vindictive enough to seek to achieve this through the courts. Maproom (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * John Milton wrote all the back in 1643 in his pamphlet, the  Areopagitica : “Let her [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter? Her confuting is the best and surest suppressing.” If something is false, the truth will come out eventually, so all this business of allowing rich people to abuse libel laws is ultimately a waste of time. The same thing follows if somebody says something false about somebody, sooner or late the truth will win out. As Milton noted, when Truth and Falsehood grapple, when as the Truth ever been defeated? Libel laws are not necessary. The truth is the best defense against libel. Besides, there are of cases of people winning judgement in English libel courts against people who said things that were true. In 1959 Liberace won £8,000 from the Daily Mail after the columnist William Connor wrote an article strongly implying he was gay. Connor used what would today be considered terribly homophobic language, but it was true; Liberace was gay and should not be allowed to win that case. In 1987, the politician Jeffrey Archer won £500,000 from the Daily Star in a libel case after it ran an article saying he made use of the services of prostitutes, which turned out to be true. How does that advance the interests of society by allowing people like Liberace and Archer being awarded money because newspapers ran articles that said about them were true? Even worse is somebody like Savile who abused the libel law to prevent the fact that he was a disgusting pedophile who molested hundreds of children from coming out during his lifetime. As long ago as 1978, John Lydon aka "Johnny Rotten", talked in a press interview about how much he wanted to kill Savile because of what he was doing to children, which was not aired by the BBC out of the fear of a libel suit from Savile. Lydon said at the time that Savile was "into all sorts of seediness. We all know about it but we’re not allowed to talk about it. I know some rumours." And for what it is worth, it seems that the litigious Mr. bin Mahfouz really was a fundraiser for al-Qaeda. It strains credibility that the same man who ran numerous Islamic charities in Saudi Arabia that were supposed to helping people in Afghanistan that turned out to be fronts for al-Qaeda was unaware of that. Mr. bin Mahfouz was by all accounts a sharp and intelligent businessman, and it seems odd that he was being played for a sucker by al-Qaeda, unwillingly raising money for them while thinking he was helping orphans in Afghanistan over and over again. So I would agree with you, the libel law favors the rich and vindictive and allows them to use their wealth to impose their version of reality on us, at least for a moment. Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that he seems to be trying to resolve this properly, and that I have pointed him to this page. &#91;Username Needed&#93; 10:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

It is far easier for a "wealthy Saudi businessman ... who was not living in England" to sue someone in an English court than it is for a (retired?) university history professor in Kansas (Clark). The answer to "why didn't you sue?" isn't necessarily indicative of anything. In my experience, existence or outcome of civil law cases is not always, or even often, suggestive of anything other than the determination and resources of the parties involved. I know we'd (Wikipedia editors) like to believe otherwise because we sometimes have no other confirmation. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 20:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Either this incident where almost the entire faulty of the University of Cambridge issued a public letter rebuking Clark for his criticism of Plumb happened or did not. Judging from this page's history, Clark feels that it did not, saying this is a libelous claim. But this claim is referenced to a RS. So far, Clark has not actually presented any proof that Mr. Hutton made this claim up, only making assertions to that effect. If he really feels that this page is making a libelous claim about him, and judging from the edit history, he does feel very strongly about it, then he really sue Mr. Hutton and Routledge Press. Either this public letter was issued or it was not. It should be a pretty open and shut case if this claim has been fabricated about a matter that he seems to feel very determined about. Where is the proof that Ronald Hutton fabricated this statement? None as far I can see. There is a rule around here stating that criticism is not libel. If there is a RS showing that Mr. Hutton has made a libelous statement, which seems very unlikely given English libel law, then it is up to Mr. Clark to produce it. Mr. Hutton described Mr. Clark as engaging in vitriolic attacks against Mr. Plumb, which is what prompted the public letter that Mr. Clark claims never happened. This appears to be a classic case of someone who can dish, but sure can't take it; in other words, a bully.
 * The litigious Mr. bin Mahfouz was able to prevent certain statements that he not like from appearing in the book, Alms for Jihad, published by Cambridge University Press in 2006 merely by threatening to issue a libel suit, so I'm certain Mr. Clark could do the same with Routledge. That is especially egregious since Mr. bin Mahfouz really seems to have been a fundraiser for al-Qaeda. So if this story of a public letter rebuking Clark "never happened" as he has repeatedly asserted, then why has not forced Routledge to remove it from A Companion to Historiography. As the case of the ever threatening Mr. bin Mahfouz with Alms for Jihand proves you don't actually have to sue to prevent information you don't like from going public, merely threatening to sue is enough. And check out this article Billion Dollar Whale about how Mr. Jho Low, a Malaysian financier urgently wanted in both his nation and in the United States for his role in the looting of $1 billion dollars from the 1MDB investment fund was able to use the English libel law to prevent the book Billion Dollar Whale from appearing in Britain. Mr. Low is a fugitive on the run who is believed to hiding somewhere in the People's Republic of China who if he were to show his face in Britain would be arrested to be extradited to either American or Malaysia, yet he was able to use the libel law to prevent a book Billion Dollar Whale from appearing. First, he threatened to sue the British publisher of Billion Dollar Whale, and when the publisher went ahead, threatened to sue any bookstore that sold Billion Dollar Whale. Finally, somebody was brave enough to defy his threats, but still how does a man on the run from the law get away with this? If somebody like the well named Mr. Low can keep a book he evidently does not like from appearing in England at least for a time, surely a retired historian can do the same?
 * With all due respect, the fact that Mr. Clark has not issued a libel suit against Mr. Hutton is not germane; rather the real point is that the given the nature of English libel law, publishers tend to be ultra-cautious about publishing anything that might be the cause of a libel suit. I think that very unlikely that the Routledge Press, which is based in London, would allow a libelous statement about Mr. Clark to appear in one of their books, especially about a matter that can be easily verified. If this story about a public letter criticizing Clark is all made up, then it almost certainly not had been allowed to appear in a book published in England. When to comes to saying something that might offend rich and powerful people, English publishers and journalists are all about as brave as rabbits. The articles that appeared in the Miami Herald exposing Jeffery Epstein last year would never appeared in an English newspaper because as the Jimmy Savile case tragically shows, the law in England is far more concerned about the protecting the reputation of wealthy pedophiles than it is about protecting the victims of said pedophiles. That is profoundly wrong, but that's the way the law works in England. Mr. Epstein should have moved to England because no British newspaper would had ever dared to expose him. English libel laws causes far more harm than any possible good. The very fact that a claim that is likely to offend Clark appeared in a book published in England despite the libel laws very strongly suggests that this story is true, despite what the subject of this page keeps trying to claim. --A.S. Brown (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Request edit on 14 February 2020
I was a member of the Cambridge History Faculty at the time that this supposed letter censuring Clark was written. I never heard of any such letter, and a fortiori did not sign it. The very least I can say, therefore, is that there was no letter signed by everyone in the Faculty. Furthermore, I do not believe any such letter existed, and cannot imagine where Ronald Hutton got the information from. However popular such collective letters may have become in recent years, they were certainly not common in the past, and to do something like this was certainly not the style of the History Faculty then.80.5.131.26 (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Understandably, claims involving personal narratives are difficult to substantiate and therefore are not typically added to articles without corroborating sources. Regards, Spintendo  20:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)