Talk:Richard J. Evans

Untitled

Besides being a hired gun against Irving, Evans has also been used to go after Joel Hayward(spelling) and maybe others. I am not sure if he got money to try and get Hayward - someone may know.159.105.80.141 19:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Much,much more should be made of his Irving trial contribution., it is actually the only thing he is known for. There are some good articles chewing his scholarship to pieces - proIrving - if linkf/citations are needed. Another judge at another time could have found a lot of errors in his work too.159.105.80.141 15:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What absolute twaddle. To say that Prof Evans is known only for his work in the trial of Irving is ridiculous. His first two studies of the coming of the Third Reich and life under the Nazis are both stunning and intellectually sound. That's to say nothing of his earlier work which presumably are what got him the 'gig' in the first place. I'd be interested to see these "good articles" that "chew his scholarship to pieces". I think it is perfectly obvious that you have an axe to grind here.Mike1971inter 12:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the ax I have to grind is the other blade of the ax you probably grind. Look up Joel Hayward - Evans if you want a good story - not likely to find it on nitzor ( he was a new Zealander I believe ). Evans work on Irving had a liberal dose of ad hominem - not much scholarship. I will try to refind the source that ridicules his work - maybe us ax grinders could read it before complaining about the source ( it might not be wiki/nitzor approved but it might be interesting anyway.159.105.80.141 17:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Back in minutes - joelhayward 's own site - read it directly from the horses' mouth. Mr Evans is given his say on this site and gets pretty bad chewed by other professors who don't even seem to know him. See if you come away from this with a sweet gooey feeling for Dick, or even much respect.159.105.80.141 18:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry there's tons more - just trying to find a squeaky clean site that says it.159.105.80.141 18:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out Evan's Conclusion of his 750+- page brief to the court - ad hominem to a degree unimaginable. I didn't think you wrote this kind of stuff for a judge to read. I will have to check out Hayward more - it appears he came into Evan's gunsight - maybe for something to do with Irving. 159.105.80.141 19:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

From memory, Evans wasn't the only authority to criticise Irving at the trial. Ultimately, the judgement destroyed Irving and his reputation, not just by the decision but also by its damning tone. BTW, it's good to adopt a name, not just an IP address, apparantly from a library(?). Also, plz don't be too rude to Mike1971inter. As a Middlesborough FC supporter, he has a tough time already. Folks at 137 19:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Destroyed Irving's reputation - only among people who didn't like what he said ( usually on only one or two issues ). After reading the poor judge's decision a person feels almost sorry for a man so scared. ( If he is smart enough to be a judge then he must know a story that looks like swiss cheese ( of course why lose your nice house, nice car, pretty young wife ( just guessing ) by not piling onto the enemy of the people who give all these goodies. You are right Evans wasn't the only authority ( not even the best ) but neither Evan's testimony or anyother was really needed for Irving to lose ( nor would a good lawyer etc have helped.) Irving seems to have had confidence that English justice would do the obviously right thing ( he wasn't as smart or paranoid as the situation required).I was told to use the 4~ and see no need to upgrade ( next they'll want my library card number).159.105.80.141 19:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Over here, a "poor judge's decision" will get dissected and criticised. It wasn't. There are right-wing journalists (and some left-wing ones too) who would have given the judgement a hard time, if they could. They didn't. The testimonies showed hard examples of twisted translations and partial selection of information by Irving - this is what has destroyed him, not his perspective. Personaly speaking, I don't speak German, I wasn't even born during the war. So I rely upon evidence and others' judgement. Castigating everyone (including expert witnesses who could be prosecuted if they lied in court and were open to cross examination, and a judge against whom you have nothing against except his judgement) who disagrees with you - with no firm backing - is just unconvincing. If Holocaust deniers really had the facts, then invective would be unnecessary. BTW, use the nos if you like, but a name is more friendly and "inclusive" and allows contributions at other locations to be made as one person. Sorry if that's garbled, must go to work. Folks at 137 05:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"Over here, a "poor judge's decision" will get dissected and criticised. It wasn't." It most certainly was criticised but I don't doubt you managed to miss it. Irving didn't lose the case because of "hard examples of twisted translations and partial selection of information by Irving." The "twisted translations," as you call them, were certainly not "hard evidence" and any historian with thousands of pages of published work can be made to appear they've drawn conclusions from only a "partial selection of information." Some of the books Irving wrote in the '60's and early '70's were good but he went off the deep end with the publication of "Hitler's War." Besides the allegations about Hitler's lack of Holocaust involvement, the book frequently contradicts some of Irving's own work published just a few years earlier. I first saw public behavior from Irving that I considered crackpot when the fake Hitler diaries came out in 1984. To me, his decision to act as his own attorney in the libel suit was a further example of this. In the late '80's and '90's, Irving's writings and behavior, such as associating with militant right-wing groups, became significantly more controversial and this contributed to a tremendous public bias against Irving by the time of his lawsuit. In my opinion, it was this prejudice, not hard evidence, that caused Irving to lose the trial. Given the media and public bias against Irving, it's hard to imagine the judge deciding in Irving's favor.TL36 (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo for Evans?

Can we use this official Cambridge photo for Evans' page?--Bureaucracy (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The Alleged £70,181 Payment: Is It Right to Cite David Irving?

This page mentions that Evans received £70,181 pounds (which is about equal to $114,152.91 US dollar for those interested) for his work as an defense witness at the libel trial of Deborah Lipstadt in 2000. My problem here is that the source for this claim is David Irving's web-site, and if I understand the rules around here correctly, Mr. Irving is not considered to be a reliable source, and should not be used. I believe that is correct that Evans was indeed paid for his work at Lipstadt's trial, through I am not certain if it was such a high figure. Anyhow, am I alone in seeing this as a issue? --A.S. Brown (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that page is dubious, as there's no indication where FPP (not a reliable source in my view) got that information from. In any case, the exact sum is probably unnecessary detail. It should be removed --IxK85 (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems about to be correct. Another trial page mentions "Van Pelt £109,244.24, Funke £92,557.94, Longerich £76,195.25, Evans £70,181, and Browning a (relatively) modest £27,632.12." http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/appeal/skeleton/0105 . Besides that, if you think fpp or any other site are dubious (and one can for sure say that about any site), then one should just mention that site XYZ claims "ABC". That way it's save. --41.151.186.193 (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That's part of the argument Irving's lawyers submitted during his failed appeals against the finding of the libel trial. Presumably they checked this figure (which would have been available to them), but I fail to see what it's significance is. Part of Irving's argument was that the fees were excessive and influenced the experts' conclusions (eg, that they were essentially guns for hire - see the judge's summary of Irving's argument here), but given that the appeals were dismissed with two judges concluding that the fees didn't influence the experts' conclusions [1] no weight should be put on this. It's hardly unreasonable for Evans and his two assistants to have been paid for the several months worth of work they put into preparing their expert report. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Laudatory claims

The source given, a book review, describes his approach as "comprehensive" and the books as "exhaustive yet readable". It contains no such superlative claims. While I'm not up on Wikipedia policy, I would think evidence of widespread belief would be necessary before noting laudations like this in an encyclopedia at all. I was going to add "what has been called" to the sentence to at least indicate the POV nature, but without an example to cite I don't even know that that's true. (Plus would I then just be turning it into an instance of "weasel words"/"by whom?"?) I'm tempted to simply delete the sentence, but would appreciate the input of a Wikipedia veteran or two. --MilFlyboy (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

the scholarly consensus in favor of Evans is clear enough. eg (1)"British historian Richard Evans has become one of the leading authorities on Nazi Germany with his three-volume history" and "the first two volumes of Richard Evans's comprehensive and judicious history" [The Routledge Companion to Nazi Germany (2007) Page 65, 52]; (2) "For the history of Nazi Germany in general, Richard Evans' The Third Reich in Power...is a very good resource." [Scheck, Germany, 1871-1945: A Concise History (2008) Page 235]; (3) "The best of a rich and ever-growing body of literature is Richard J. Evans' trilogy" [Law, Terrorism: A History- Page 177]. Rjensen (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There are more sources at The Third Reich Trilogy article, which this section talks about. Jmj713 (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of the Daily Mail

According to WP:Suggested sources one should "generally avoid British tabloids such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Mirror and The Sun." According to WP:BLPSOURCES, Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. According to wp:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Is_the_Daily_Mail_a_reliable_source The Daily Mail gets sued quite regularly. It often ends up having to issue an apology or retraction and pay damages. That's not what one would hope for from a first-class encyclopedic source. Jayen466 17:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Think this is generally accepted & people shouldn't post items based on tabloids. JRPG (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"generally avoid" does not apply 100% of the time and it does not apply here. The article provides a factual statement that Gove wrote such-and-such in a newspaper and provided a footnote that proves he did indeed do that. There is no tabloid reporting involved--In other words "tabloid journalism" is NOT involved. It is an allowed use of a primary source and closely follows the WP:Primary rule. The WP:BLPSOURCES rule does not apply because the Daily Mail is not the "only sourcing." Rjensen (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for a rapid response, Rjensen. We’re both familiar with the rules and can, I’m sure, resolve our differences. You may have overlooked the link to the full Mail article embedded in the Guardian article which I feel is perfectly adequate –if so –no problems –just skip a couple of sentences.

My objection to primary sources in the Mail in general and this article in particular is that Gove is –in Evans words – playing to the gallery. I don’t believe any wp:Suggested sources with their better informed readers would have printed it. Gove is hardly an academic historian and Evan’s contempt at his attempt to present himself as such is mildly amusing but the personal attacks are not what is significant about the controversy. The guardian article highlights the errors, in particular the oversimplification perhaps necessary for Daily Mail readership.

He seems to forget that one of Britain's two main allies was the Russia of Tsar Nicholas II, a despotism of no mean order, far more authoritarian than the Kaiser's Germany.

Whilst avoiding wp:undue I’d like to include Evans comments on playing to the gallery & Russia. I don't think the Mail article is essential. Any thoughts? JRPG (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Gove is indeed playing to the gallery and the readers should be able to read for themselves what Evans responded to. My point is that tabloid journalism is not involved (MAIL journalists did not write the piece, Gove did.) The article does not deal with WWI -- it deals with Evans and how he got entangled with Gove in a highly publicized row. Rjensen (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Rjensen, I accept without question that readers will want the opportunity to see the original Mail article. Please look at the 5th line down in the Guardian article -it is there! I believe that is entirely sufficient & no further explicit reference is needed from us. Could I politely ask you to explain why you think a separate reference is required. Also why you think Evan’s comments repudiating Gove’s arguments are irrelevant on Evan's own page. Regards JRPG (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Influenced by the New Left

Although Evans may or may not have been "influenced by the new left" this assessment is footnoted to an article by an older scholar, now deceased, Theodore S. Hamerow, which refers to a passing mention of Evans as an example of a "young Turk" bent on overthrowing the previous generation of "young Turks", by "writing from the ground up" through focusing on broad social conditions (rather than the so called "great man" historiography of previous generations?). This assessment dates back to the beginning of Evans' career 34 years ago, specifically, when Evans was in his early thirties and well before he had written any of the large-scale works on German history on which his current prestige and reputation are based. Indeed Hamerow does not assess any of Evans' works to that date (1983), citing only an introduction Evans wrote to another person's book. As such, I believe it gives an incomplete (to say the least) and unfair perspective on Evans' accomplishment that is incompatible with the encyclopedic tone and standards of Wikipedia, much less its criteria for the biographies of living persons. I suggest something, instead like "Evans early books on sociological topics such as the history Feminism, etc., caused him to be categorized as a "young Turk" by older critics such as the late Theodore S. Hamerow,.... etc. Mballen (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact is that "history from the ground up" was a widespread reaction against the limitations of the so-called "great man" theory of history (now considered old fashioned) which focused solely political history and ascribed agency only to world leaders and other wealthy influential individuals. It encompassed the Annales school, which took a long view and declined to involve themselves in current political issues and the so-called "revisionist" left. Evans did include himself among the insurgent young historians, but in practice his history encompassed both sociological explanations and politics. Mballen (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Evans v. Gove - was this of any third-party note?

The use of the Daily Mail was questioned above. But I note this section is sourced entirely to: one article by Gove (in the DM, at that); and one article by Evans.

Did it actually achieve wider note? 'Cos as it stands, this probably shouldn't be here - David Gerard (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Removed this section - we can restore it if there's any evidence that a third-party RS discussed it - David Gerard (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Historian of the Holocaust?

Would it be fair to add him to Category:Historians of the Holocaust? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)