Talk:Max Hastings

Australian "slur"
There seem to be a lot of Australians editing the page because of a remark Max Hastings made, as I am an inexperienced member I would ask that a moderator monitor this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portcullis (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There have been death threats made on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.53.142 (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Followed today's editing with surprise and disappointment. First a parallel point. Although I find some of his description of Commonwealth troops and Montgomery in northern Europe unpalatable (eg, in Armageddon), Hastings has a point to argue and has sources to back up his point of view - as do those who take a contrary view (eg, Robin Neillands). Similarly, Beevor, has angered the Russians by bits of Berlin where new documents have punctured the Red Army's pristine self-image.

I haven't yet seen the offending book about the Aussies yet so I followed up one of the citations (Frank Walker in the Age). The situation Walker referred to wasn't that much different to northern Europe - war's end in sight and no one wanting be the last bloody hero. In Europe, British and American officers, in 1945, reported difficulties in getting their men to to be as "brave" as they had been a few months before. In addition, it's not the first time I've seen references to Australian forces being sidelined to peripheral, perhaps unnecessary, but still deadly situations as in Borneo (the Americans were creating a zone of influence). All-in-all, it's not "cowardice" in that situation, but unwillingness to sell one's life to little real purpose. It's not the front-line soldier who has failed, it's the "higher-ups".

Don't know whether Hastings comments are specific to a situation or are general to the war - he would need a ton of sources if it were the latter. Sources: if Hastings can back his statements up, and he's no hack so he must have found something, then rather than gunning for him from the hip (however angry) then it's better to retrieve and analyse sources and demonstrate weaknesses in the argument. Gets more respect and carries more weight than what has gone on today.

BTW, I don't agree that the undoubted guts and sacrifice of Aussie troops in one theatre (eg, north Africa, Singapore, New Guinea, etc) is an argument. As I've said, lack of belief in the objective or a feeling that "we've done our bit" will sap the morale of any force (apart from militaristic automatons). Even battle-hardened, proven troops can hold back. Similar situations happened elsewhere.

I think that the points in the article can be expressed better (more "encyclopedic"), I'll have a go at it soon and then take cover. Don't want to get my head blown off. Sorry to be so wordy. Folks at 137 21:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've had a go (see above). No offence is intended. Hope my firewall survives. BTW, one of the references (Fox) doesn't work for me. Folks at 137 22:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just removed this section. The 'controversy' lasted for about two days (a slow news Sunday and Monday) and it's inclusion in the article seemed to be a case of Recentism. It might be worth including in an article on the book, but it doesn't seem significant enough to include in Hastings' biography. Most bookshops I've visited recently have multiple copies of the book, which tends to suggest that it's selling well and hasn't caused widespead outrage in Australia. --Nick Dowling (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I've chopped it back to one sentence as it is cited in reliable sources, caused a bit of a splash and, perhaps most significantly, led a historian at the Australian War Memorial to (mildly) criticise Hastings' work as a historian. I still suspect that it's not worth including though as it wasn't really that big a deal. --Nick Dowling (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Having read the book I can't see that this warrants mention on this page. It's a short chapter in a long book and Hasting's point seems to be that whilst the Australian military came out of the Western desert campaign (and others) with a reputation as supermen, on the Home Front and in the mopping up operations this wasn't the case. He also lays the blame fairly and squarely on the CO and the politicians who tolerated him. Unless the points Hastings made are actually lies - and I haven't heard that and obviously can't check the original sources myself, I suggest you remove this critism or at least balance it with the generla praise the book has received.

Errata
"Hastings lives with his second wife Penny (née Levinson), with whom he had two children, in west Berkshire." - not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.245.33 (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any useful reference other than your personal assurance? Hohum (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia vandalism copied into Hastings' new book
There were two instances of Wikipedia vandalism on the Rosie the Riveter page that stayed visible for three years. Hastings transferred one sentence worth of this vandalism into his new book, (November 1, 2011). Inferno: The World at War, 1939–1945, Random House Digital, Inc.

The Hastings sentence is, "Another much-publicised 'Rosie' was Shirley Karp Dick, who was paid $6 to model for photos, of which the most famous showed her treading on Hitler's Mein Kampf."

The fictional "Shirley Karp" was introduced to the "Rosie" article by an IP vandal on January 16, 2009. Well-meaning editors cemented the vandalism, including the bit about being paid $6. Shirley Karp picked up a "Dick" with this vandalism on April 13, 2009. The Rosie who put her foot on a copy of Mein Kampf was Norman Rockwell's widely seen painting of Rosie the Riveter, using Mary Doyle as the model. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The index even listed a Dick, Shirley Karp for reader convenience.
 * The October 2012 edition of the book—ISBN 0307475530—has been corrected. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That's fascinating. At least he corrected it. --John (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hagiography and adventure novel language
"...who became his abiding ally.[1] Thus he set off for the United States..." sounds like Tom Brown's Schooldays or one of Frank Richards' novels about Greyfriars with no disrespect intended to those most entertaining books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.149.24.147 (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a meaningless statement anyway: Whilst most of his immediate family were educated at Stonyhurst College, it was his cousin Sir Stephen Hastings who became his abiding ally. Valetude (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Plagiarism charge
Has some third party vetted this yet?

http://20committee.com/2015/03/30/plagiarism-is-not-cool/

Hcobb (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Very interesting. It meshes with my little discovery, discussed two headings above. The problem is the same, that Hastings or one or more of his assistants are apparently plagiarizing without attribution. Binksternet (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't it a bit dubious having this allegation in the article when the only sources (the one above, and the one in the article) are written by the man claiming to have been plagiarised? &mdash;Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 15:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Len Deighton
If Len Deighton wrote "The Battle of Britain", why is Max Hastings' name there as well? RASAM (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Max Hastings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008163815/http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5704518/the-tory-defence-policy-will-be-simple-cut-brutally.thtml to http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5704518/the-tory-defence-policy-will-be-simple-cut-brutally.thtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Max Hastings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130626225441/http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/h/241/Max+Macdonald.aspx to http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/h/241/Max+Macdonald.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

What qualifies Hastings as a military historian?
Military history has a description of the subject that does not seem to fit Hastings being a military historian. He has no academic qualifications in the subject. Nor does he seem to fit the description in WP:HISTRS. I suggest that he is simply a writer in military history. His training is simply as a journalist.

Looking at some of the controversy on this page and elsewhere about some of his work, I note that he seems to gain support from other journalists, but not from academic historians. That might support the point I am making. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * With no answer to citation needed in article, I have edited that out.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added a citation but, per WP:CITELEAD, this is not best practice. Being a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and winning multiple prizes should have sufficed but so it goes.  Andrew🐉(talk) 13:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The subject writes
Sir Max had a section in The Times "Notebook" (diary, page 30) yesterday with a good moan: "...when I once telephoned Wikipedia to correct some ridiculous errors in my own entry - even about such things as how many children I have - they declined to accept this intervention as legitimate. They said that I must produce citations and evidence from others. "But surely I know the facts of my own life", I exclaimed.  They refused to budge.  The errors persist, presumably until I employ image managers." Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I wonder how recently Sir Max has checked his article - the mention of how many children he has seems to match the piece on him in the Times. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed - see also here. Of course, actually saying how many there are would make things too easy. Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)