Talk:Richard J. Evans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the United Kingdom. For more information, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Neutrality: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

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)