Talk:Norman Stone

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Carr Sacrosanct?

message: 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)
thread_title: Rename of Category

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:   "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)
replies: text:   Just in case my changes are reverted again. Hayek79 (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  None. Hayek79 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: If you are happy fine - Hayek79 has a history of edit warring hence the concern ----Snowded TALK 05:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: We'll just have to agree to disagree on the history ----Snowded TALK 13:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "No apparent repetition" 

message: 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)
replies: text:   "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)
replies: text:   Just in case my changes are reverted again. Hayek79 (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  None. Hayek79 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: If you are happy fine - Hayek79 has a history of edit warring hence the concern ----Snowded TALK 05:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: We'll just have to agree to disagree on the history ----Snowded TALK 13:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Views

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oxford