Talk:Norman Stone

Untitled
No mention of the BHHRG? 86.136.88.187 00:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate
"He has been much criticized for his public assurances during 2004 (notably in The Spectator and The Times Literary Supplement) that the Armenian genocide never occurred."

He made no such 'assurances' in either publication during his comments regarding flaws in evidence used in a book that was under review.

''Stone has never denied that vast numbers of Armenians were slaughtered during forced deportations from Turkey in 1915; he does not even dispute the possibility that there was genocidal intent. What he does dispute is that there is unequivocal evidence of such intent, and in the absence of a smoking gun, prefers to stick to "massacres". http://arts.independent.co.uk/books/features/article2829372.ece''

Indeed, Stone's comments in The Times Literary Supplement were in the feedback section of historian Andrew Mango's own review which itself made the exact same point.

The article can certainly reflect Stone's position, but should do so clinically. The current line presents as an appeal to ridicule.

Either post the 'assurances' or amend it.

Carr Sacrosanct?
I have removed the following: "The attack saw Stone lose considerable respect within the historical profession, and he became increasingly reliant upon his conservative connections. " as it seems to imply that any criticism of that late, great apologist for Soviet mass murder, namely E. H. Carr was highly damaging to Stone's career, and that any subsequent success Stone has enjoyed has been to political patronage of Margaret Thatcher rather than his scholarly abilities. Besides for being unreferenced, this claim is slanderous in the extreme. --A.S. Brown (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename of Category
Some of you may wish to participate in the discussion on renaming the category Armenian Genocide deniers to Armenian Genocide skeptics. The discussion is here. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"No apparent repetition"
Compare these please. Could you do me the courtesy of actually reading my changes before you revert them, thanks. Hayek79 (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Cambridge
Stone was subsequently accepted in 1984 as a Professor of Modern History at Oxford University, England. Stone's tenure at Oxford was not without controversy. Petronella Wyatt wrote that Stone "loathed the place as petty and provincial, and for its adherence to the Marxist-determinist view of history." He published a column in the Sunday Times between 1987 and 1992, and was also employed by the BBC, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, and the Wall Street Journal. Stone became Margaret Thatcher's foreign policy advisor on Europe, as well as her speech writer.

Views
Stone's tenure at Oxford was not without incident, largely based around his political views, which were considered to be highly conservative. Petronella Wyatt wrote that Stone "loathed the place as petty and provincial, and for its adherence to the Marxist-determinist view of history." He published a regular column in the Sunday Times between 1987 and 1992, and helped comment for many news services, including the BBC, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, and the Wall Street Journal.

Stone's reputation was affected by an obituary he wrote in 1983 for the London Review of Books of E. H. Carr, and which some felt bordered on defamatory.

During this same time Stone also became Margaret Thatcher's foreign policy advisor on Europe, as well as her speech writer.


 * There is a repetetive element but you obscured this by your much more extensive blanking. Also there is a confusion between Oxford and Cambridge. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "repetitive element" - entire thing is repetition, apart from the bit about E.H. Carr which I believe I left in. Unless I get a response soon I'm reverting your changes. If you revert them again I shall contact a moderator. As you can see, the parts I removed are almost identical - I thought my mouse must have slipped while reading it. Hayek79 (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Just in case my changes are reverted again. Hayek79 (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You've selectively re-deleted the repetetive aspect only. Fair enough, but what further action are you contemplating? Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * None. Hayek79 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You referred to waiting for a response pending reversion. Was that only a count to 10 then? Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't see any real repetition and anyway, if something is disputed it needs to be resolve on the talk page Snowded  TALK 17:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the concerns but the sections restored today do actually cover exactly the same ground and with almost identical wording as the Oxford section, so one or other should go. The original deletions on the 24th did additionally remove some non-repetitious material, which had caused me to mistakenly think the entire deletion was inappropriate and hence my reversion. The non-repetitious material had been restored after discussion and an incorrect heading was corrected so I was happy with the result, if not the snippiness of the exchanges that led to it. I'd suggest either reversion of today's restoration of the duplicate material, or the removal of the Oxford section; it amounts to the same thing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are happy fine - Hayek79 has a history of edit warring hence the concern Snowded  TALK 05:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The style of editing and of engagement on the talk page did ring alarm bells, so their history doesn't surprise me but in this instance the final result was satisfactory. I'll restore to that version. Worth your while checking it out though, thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I do not have a "history of edit warring". You are referring to a warning you posted on my talk page years ago, concerning to changes I made to the Labour Party page. That the two paragraphs pasted were almost identical, probably copied and edited slightly from the same source, would suggest that you're now following me around Wikipedia in order to be a nuisance. Hayek79 (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * We'll just have to agree to disagree on the history Snowded  TALK 13:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Oxford
Whatever Chair Stone accepted at Oxford in 1984, it was neither the Regius Professorship nor the Chichele Professorship. I do not know what other Chair of Modern History was available for the taking. He probably taught there at some point. Pamour (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Reputation
Extremely negative and hostile obituary by leading historian Richard J. Evans in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jun/25/norman-stone-obituary --Ef80 (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added some material from that obit. Nick-D (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * An IP editor removed this claiming it was unreferenced and disputed, and added some unreferenced material claiming that Evans' obit has been criticised. I've undone these changes. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I was a student of Stone's at Cambridge and although he was an entertaining lecturer, because mostly inebriated, he was a sexist bore who was fundamentally unhappy that women (and others, but mostly women) had the temerity to express opinions he didn't like. So no, not all his students thought he was wonderful, and Richard Evans has no cause to be 'professionally jealous' of anyone. 2A00:23C5:67D7:4B00:ED40:C47D:D8E:2D2F (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You have written that "During his period at Oxford Stone also gained a reputation for groping female students".  This is based on a statement in the Guardian obituary that "Stone became notorious for groping his female students".   Both statements indicate that this is an encyclopaedic fact.   My change, which you kindly reversed without having taken time to give the matter too much thought, was to "According to one source, he "became notorious [at Oxford] for groping his female students"."   That does not downplay the power of the allegation, but it does highlight the fact that it is an opinion - maybe a widely shared one - which may or may not be considered an important part of why Norman Stone has a wikipedia entry all to himself.   It's a legitimate opinion, but probably better relegated to a special "controversy" or "trivia" section, than included as one of four sentences about what was important about his career as professor of modern history at England's second university.


 * As far as I am aware the groping allegations were never tested in court.  The man who published them in your source is a man who is unlikely to have been groped by Stone or to have been present at a non-consensual groping session involving Stone.   He may or not have been informed of them by an alleged victim of an alleged groping incident.   He may simply have picked up on it from gossip at high table or in the faculty during coffee breaks.   Either way, the onus is on him (and on anyone repeating the allegation) to give it a status beyond that of hearsay.   Fine for an obituary about a fellow you can't stand.   But for something that aspires to become respected for its encyclopedic standards ... I think not.   Not if you're going to start presenting your allegation as an encyclopedic fact.


 * I mentioned before that I found the obituary you have chosen to favour "bizarrely nasty".  The Guardian is regarded - rightly in my view - as more committed to truth and objectivity than many mainstream English newspapers.   But obituaries are famously ... different.   Stone was not, as far as I know, particularly litigious.   And he is dead.   Under the legal framework in place in countries influenced by English law, dead people don't sue for defamation.   That's fine.   But it is not necessarily a reflection of the standard of objectivity you should be applying in wikipedia.   I do not find the Guardian obituary screamingly objective.   Do you?


 * Norman Stone had a formidable talent for pissing people off.  He gave every indication that he was rather proud if it.   Many people (including me) think that was enhanced / exacerbated by his issues with alcohol.   A whole new can of worms on which we will mostly have our own views and experiences.   I do not doubt that large numbers of Oxford historians are included on the list of people pissed off by Norman Stone.   In terms of reputation, it was clearly a strategic error on Stone's part that he managed to die before  - to take an example not quite at random - Richard Evans.   But there really are other obituaries that are less one sided.   And where there are hints of a hatchet job, I think we owe it to wikipedia to take care not to jump mindlessly onto any passing bandwagon.   Hitler?   Bad man.   That's mainstream.   But is it really part of wikipedia's job to be creating new mainstreams concerning newly dead subjects simply because they're good at upsetting their colleagues / rivals?   I think not.


 * Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The Guardian is clearly a reliable source, and is well regarded for its standards of accuracy and fact checking. The author of the obit Richard J. Evans is also clearly an expert in this field. I'm not seeing any reason to doubt the obit's statement that Stone had a reputation for sexual assault, or present it as being an opinion. Are you aware of any reliable sources which dispute it? If so, they should be included. We obviously should not be looking to minimise or omit credible statements that people committed sexual assault. Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Richard Evans is a deservedly lauded expert in the field of History.  I am not aware that he has any particular qualifications in the field of People we don't like.   If you know better, feel free to share your insights.   Are you trying to make us believe that everything in the Guardian obituary must be credible because the syntax is sound and you are impressed by the fellow's reputation as a fine historian?   I think there are some missing links in the logic there.   Of course there are also important missing links in the logic between your eminently reasonable abhorrence of sexual assault and your assumption that if an allegation is nasty enough then it must by definition be true; but presumably you spotted that already!   Regards Charles01 (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding the bar set by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, we can be comfortable regarding Evans an expert on Stone his obit was published in a reliable source. More broadly, Evans is a prominent academic historian who is also the author of professionally published works on historiography and a large number of articles and book reviews assessing other historians and their work. As noted, please provide reliable sources which dispute Evans' statements if there is debate regarding them so the article can cover this. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As the editor who added the link to the Graun obit to this talk page, I do think we should exercise care when referencing it. Evans obviously loathed Stone with a passion, and while it seems very likely that Stone was indeed a nasty piece of work, we need very good refs if we're going to repeat allegations of sexual assault. Charles01 is right that obits tend to be poor factual sources, but usually because they are anodyne hagiographies rather than hatchet jobs. --Ef80 (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree with the above comment by ef80, for allegations of sexual assaults an obituary is not enough. If you insist on including the allegation, the phrasing by Charles01 is much better IMO.Greece666 (talk) 06:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * An obit in a leading newspaper written by a leading historian who is also a leading expert on historiography and high profile reviewer of works by historians seems about as good a source as we're likely to get. If Evans' high obit (which attracted a lot of attention) is considered controversial and/or has been contested by other RS, please provide these references so the article can give a balanced view of the topic. Absent this, it seems reasonable to conclude that Evans' statement about Stone's reputation for sexual assault hasn't been contested. We shouldn't be self-censoring the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a shabby appeal to authority. Evans has a bit of a reputation for savaging dead historians who were contemporaries of his, not only Stone but also Lewis Namier. Why not make it clear that these are unsupported allegations of groping made after his death? On this matter, Evans cannot be considered a reliable source 81.147.81.80 (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Ridiculously biased. It may follow the letter of wiki policies but certainly not the spirit. But then most people I know are well aware of the biases on Wikipedia. 37.154.146.198 (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)