Talk:Martin Gilbert

message: Reverted the critial comments added by last author to the book-list; I don't have any strong views one way or the other about Gilbert's writing but I think if that sort of thing is to be added it ought to be somewhere other than in an otherwise nondescript list of published works.  It's a fairly major work, so one could quite possible make a section for it (and Eugene Rasor's review) to include the same viewpoints.  If possible, a consensus view by Churchill historians would be best imo.  At any rate, no offence in the revert, I hope.
--142.177.154.106 21:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: Sir Martin Gilbert is principally known for his contribution to the biography of Winston Churchill although he has written many other books. In my view, including a section on criticism which includes an extensive quote relating to a fairly obscure book must fail the "undue prominence" part of NPOV, unless and until a much larger section is written which discusses the critical reaction to a much wider area of his writing. It's important to remember that just as film critics don't only make negative judgments about films, a section on criticism should include critical commentary which praises as well as that which condemns. Sam Blacketer 11:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The burning question is: is there more criticism of Gilbert, than what has already been presented? So far, no one has shown that. And if this is the only major criticism, then this is not a minority view at all. Bless sins 18:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did a search of the New York Times book reviews and found several reviews. Sam Blacketer 18:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, now let's put them in, although I haven't looked at the link above.Bless sins 22:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Bless sins. Also, Sam, can you please have a look at John Esposito talk page and give your opinion on the criticism section there. Thanks --Aminz 23:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside comment from RFC 

message: "Volume Five: The Coming of War 1922-1939" I'm surprised to see this title, since I have only heard this volume sub-titled "Prophet of Truth". Anyone have source material on "The Coming of War"? Czrisher 21:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volume Title 

message: *First, this is puzzling. There was a 'life' section with something about Gilberts son referenced to the NYSun, and it was replaced with a note claiming it was inaccurate. Listing on BLP/N for further input.
*Second, this article sucks. Seriously. There is no context, none of the attacks that have been launched on Gilbert by TG Ash and such like for under-interpretation and so-on, no reviews or summaries of his style from journals, etc. (This is irritating me, because the first site for "Martin Gilbert" criticism is ihr.org. I would prefer that that not be the case, OK? Fewer people going there the better.) The reason that this in particular matters is that....
*Gilbert is a prominent RW public intellectual in England and we need some context. Look at Tony Judt for an example of a historian of similar prominence whose political and polemical work is covered in sufficient detail. Remember, this is a man - one of the greatest living historians of WW2 - who specifically compared Bush and Blair to Roosevelt and Churchill. (No, seriously. It was in the Grauniad.) At some point I will add:
::#Ash's comments
::#Recent reviews of the third volume of Churchill, which praise the completed work while complaining of its two dimensions 
::#A few views on the 1975 book, which, however poor in quality, appears to be among his most cited
::#Finally at least a few views on his political positions. Hornplease 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two things 

message: I didn't understand this edit. Which MOS policy is Jayjg referring to, and where does it call for the removal of one's religion/ethnicity?Bless sins (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:MOSBIO#Opening_paragraph. Jayjg (talk)]] 05:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear 

message: "In the 1960s, Gilbert compiled some of the first historical atlases." His are very fine, but such atlases had been published for over a century.86.42.255.68 (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First historical atlases? 

message: I've just boldly restored the properly sourced info regarding this person in the lead. The rationale about his main work being about Churchill makes no sense as the article is about the person not just his work on Churchill. Please do not revert without discussion. Vexorg (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The user user:Plot Spoiler has reverted the properly sourced edit with the rationale "This doesn't define who he is -- say something about his works." - This is clearly a completely weak excuse for his revert as the info removed is all part of defining who he is. I Shall not revert, even it is warranted as this could be classed as edit warring, so I shall leave it for at least 24 hours before restoring this info. Vexorg (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're well poisoning. This information isn't at all reflected in the article itself -- you just decided to include in the lead. Hence, it does not belong in the lead, even if it is "properly sourced." Plot Spoiler (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  No I am not well poisoning and that claim makes no sense in relation to this info. That is just as much a weak excuse as your previous non-rationale. You have just decided to not put this in the lead. This is properly sourced info which does a lot to define this person and you want it removed? Can you tell us why you want this info removed? Vexorg (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

text:  And this rationale doesn't make sense either "This information isn't at all reflected in the article itself" so you're saying that becuase something isn't in the article already we can't add it in the lead? Sorry, but you haven't provided any rationale yet to remove well sourced information. I shall leave a reasonable amount of time for other comment before restoring this informationVexorg (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, I haven't looked at the history here yet, don't really want to :), so not sure which "side" is which, even by reading this thread, but I did a slight copy edit and added a fact tag about this person being the "offical Churchhill biographer". Is there a citation for this before we get into whether it belongs in the lead? TIA --Tom (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ps, my initial gut feeling is that the lead should include what this person is most notable for being/doing/writing IF that can be determined and agreed upon. I know zip about this, which might be good or bad. Anyways, good luck and please try to get other non involved folks involved to reach consensus/compromise. Cheers! --Tom (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: pss, crap, just went over the history, I guess I should have done that first :). ok, it seems you guys are disagreeing about including he is good/practicing Jew, or whatever business, in the lead? This wouldn't go in the lead, imho, even though we point out he has written about the Holocaust and Jews, ect...Again, why is this person notable? Is it for his writings or for his ethnicity or maybe a combination? I don't know if "well-poisoning" is the best description, but I would leave the ethnicity discussion out(of the lead only)...anyways...--Tom (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree w/ user Tom -- he "understands" the issue. And thanks for assuming good faith when you're the one who is harming the impartiality and quality of the article. There is nothing about his writings on Jewish-related issues in the article but for some reason,  darn I don't know, you are going to prominently insert that he is a Jew and proud Zionist. Not that this information shouldn't be included BUT it should be included in some section relating to these issues. For the time being, I believe it constitutes well poisoning at worst and at best just violates WP:Lead and even WP:NPOV. That adequate sourcing is provided does not stop this sentence from violating those issues. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

text: That sounds like exactly where it belongs! I concur. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK Plot Spoiler. Sorted. Thanks for the dialog. :) Vexorg (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring properly sourced info in the Lead 

message: The last sentence in the Praise and criticism section read poorly in my opinion:
:In Israel's Border Wars, historian Benny Morris disputed that Gilbert's accounting of Israeli casualties from Fedayeen attacks in the 1950s was inflated.
In order to rewrite it I checked the source. After reading the source, I modified the sentence as follows:
: In Israel's Border Wars, historian Benny Morris called Gilbert's figures for the number of Israelis killed in Fedayeen attacks in the first half of the 1950s pure nonsense and a blatant example of inflation of the numbers in order to justify Israeli policies.
I can understand that, to some editors, it will look like I was trying to savage Gilbert, but the savaging is actually done by Morris. My aim was only to produce a sentence which read better and which faithfully presented what the source says. Morris does use the phrase "pure nonsense" and he does call Gilbert's figures a blatant example of the kind described. Also, the figures do specifically concern numbers killed (the word casualties implies that they deal with the number injured as well) and they do pertain to the first half of the 1950s, not the whole of the 1950s.
My edit was quickly reverted to the previous, poorly reading, version. The comment left was that my version was a BLP violation and not NPOV. If what someone has said is faithfully represented, which I claim my edited version is, and is also ascribed in the article as that person's viewpoint, it cannot be a BLP violation. Various conditions can cause a part of an article to be not NPOV, including misrepresenting a source and undue weight. I think that my version is a closer representation (partly because it uses Morris's actual wording) than the previous version, which presented what Morris said as a mere dispute about numbers. Morris questioned more than Gilbert's figures, he also questioned Gilbert's intention. On the question of undue weight, I'm open to the idea of removing the sentence altogether. Morris's comment is made in a footnote, so perhaps the article is making a bit too much of a deal about it.
    ←   ZScarpia   11:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: One author's accusation of bad intent on the part of another living author, in a footnote, is exactly what our BLP policy was intended for and it should not be included in an article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, let's delete the sentence altogether.       ←   ZScarpia   17:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Years later, in a move to justify Israeli policies, propagandists inflated the number of Israelis killed by infiltrators in 1949-1956. A blatant example is contained in M. Gilbert, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: It's History in Marps (new edn., London, 1976), 60, where the author writes that 'between 1951 and 1955 967 Israelis were killed by Arab terrorists operating inside Israel's 1949 borders'. In his appended breakdown, Gilbert states that 111 Israelis were killed in Fedayeen attacks emanating from Jordan and 26 in such attacks emanating from Egypt in 1951; in 1952, the corresponding figures were 114 and 48; in 1953, 124 and 38; in 1954, 117 and 50; and in 1955, 37 and 241. Another 55 Israelis were killed in attacks emanating from Syria and 6 in attacks emanating from Lebanon during 1951-5, according to Gilbert. The figures are pure nonsense, 3-5 times higher than the figures given in contemporary Israeli reports. Gilbert's figures appear to based on Ben-Gurion's statement to the Knesset on 2 Jan. 1956 (reproduced in D. Ben-Gurion, Medinat Yisrael HeMehudeshet (The Restored State of Israel)(Tel Aviv, 1969), ii. 482). But Ben-Gurion had spoken and written about Israeli casualties (nifga'm), meaning dead and wounded, not just fatalities.
    ←   ZScarpia   17:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praise and criticism 

message: I think this article should mention Sir Martin's endorsement of Denis Avey's book 'The Man Who Broke into Auschwitz'.  Sir Martin describes this as 'a most important book' and his support must have boosted its sales considerably.  There has been considerable controversy regarding the veracity of certain sections of the book but Sir Martin does not appear to have issued any statement retracting any of his support in the preface so his position must be as per the preface.  I am not sure whether this should merit a separate section and in an article with 42 watchers thought it best to seek the opinions of others.  I would welcome views on this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.163.210 (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the mention of Denis Avey which another editor reverted without discussing on talk page.  Would one say that Hugh Trevor Roper's authentication of the Htiler diaries belongs only on Hitler's entry - it in fact in the lead for Trevor Roper?  Gilbert's endorsement surely helped Avey's book to best-seller status.  If Gilbert accepted as true something which many others have not accepted, and which to my knowledge no other academic historian has endorsed, surely those with an interest in Gilbert are entitled to know - they may consider it relevant to his judgements on other issues. This is no an attack on Gilbert just a statement of fact.  If anyone wishes to revert there please can they respond on this talk page detail for detail and not just leave bald reason in the edit summary. (For avoidance of doubt SherlockHolmes249 is a former user name oof myself which I have now renounced - this is known to an Administrator.)  Thanks Sceptic1954 (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endorsement of Denis Avey 

message: is not mentioned in the section 'works'    (5th ed. 2011, 3rd ed. 2002, ) 
https://books.google.de/books?id=8ocM7ijQSA4C&pg=PA1 
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Routledge-British-History-Historical-Atlases/dp/0415608767/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1467816639&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Routledge+Atlas+of+British+History#reader_0415608767  
Should it be mentioned there ? --Neun-x (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  book ''the Routledge Atlas of British History'' 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Martin Gilbert. 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/20080512022457/http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/page76.asp to http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page76.asp
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) 07:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified