Talk:Hugh Trevor-Roper
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage. | ||
There seem to be discrepancies among the sources, regarding the following points:-
- date of marriage (1954 or 1957)
- wife's previous married name ("Howard-Johnston" or "Howard-Johnstone")
- number of children of wife (two or three)
Anyone happen to have easy access to Burke's Peerage or Who's Who...? :) -- Oliver PEREIRA 21:29 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
Burke's 1999 says:
- 1954, and, under "Haig", October 4, 1954
- Howard-Johnston
- 3: 2 sons, one daughter (listed under "Haig")
-- Someone else 21:38 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
Thank you ever so much for checking, Someone else. :) -- Oliver PEREIRA 21:42 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
--- The article is wrong to call the Hitler diaries crude fakes. They weren't crude at all. They were caught out through microscopic examination which revealed among other things that they were bound with a type of glue not manufactured in the 1940s. But there was nothing crude about the actual diaries, which to the eye, in the absence of scientific examination, looked genuine. In Trevor-Roper's defence, he said he judged them on their content, not binding, and initial readings left an impression in many readers that they were genuine and the discovery of the century. JTD 15:58 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)
You are may well be right. It is debatable. However, on reflection, I don't think this is the right place to report this controversy (whether the diaries were a crude fake or a sophisticated one) - it should go in the Hitler Diaries article. If you have no objection, I'll revert to your "proved by forensic examination to be a fake", and remove the tangential remark about glue, which I think disrupts the flow of the paragraph. GrahamN 16:31 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)
Sounds fine. JTD 18:17 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)
Why does this article title include his peerage title? He is not generally known by it. john k 02:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article refers to the "nadir of Dacre's career," etc., so it would seem that he was famous as "Lord Dacre of Glanton" as well. -- Emsworth 22:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Would it be worth mentioning Evelyn Waugh's attacks on T-R, because of the latter's overt anti-Catholicism? After all, it isn't every day that a world-famous novelist and a world-famous historian square off.
Depressing, the Wikipedia tendency to soften any criticism of Communism. HTR's forthright Encounter articles have to be watered down with the editorializing that well, off the record, you know, he really did think Koestler was too hard on Communism.... Come on. Quit interjecting yourself. Let HTR be who he was. Look at the Orwell article, which is similarly diluted. ~~Profhum
