Talk:Richard J. Evans

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title: Untitled

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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  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)
thread_title: The Alleged £70,181 Payment: Is It Right to Cite David Irving?

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Influenced by the New Left

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Evans v. Gove - was this of any third-party note? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Historian of the Holocaust?