This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
In the Aftermath section we read that Kujau opened a gallery in Stuttgart and sold "forgeries" of Salvador Dalí and Joan Miró, all signed with his own name.
I think instead of "forgeries," the word "copies," "reproductions," or "fakes" should be used in this context. Especially in an article about actual forgery. If an artist signs their own name, then it's not strictly a forgery. I know it's in quotation marks, but the word is used more than 35 times in the article; why not use a more precise word? —Matuko (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The description follows the sources, rather than anything else. - SchroCat (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Dacre of Glanton
I propose that the historian
peerage, very much used his title after it was conferred upon him in 1979. He died in 2003 (I think). Even Rupert Murdoch referred to him as 'Dacre', as quoted in this article. As Dacre was investigating the 'Hitler Diaries' in the early 1980s, when he had already been elevated to the peerage, I think he should be referred to by his title, Lord Dacre of Glanton, in this article. What do other contributors think? Laggan Boy (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
What is the name of his article on here: is it Trevor-Roper, or is it Dacre?
How many of his books come up on an Amazon search under the name Dacre, and how many under Trevor-Roper?
His common name, by which he was and is still commonly known, is Trevor-Roper. - SchroCat (talk) 15:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also opposed to refer to Trevor-Roper as Lord What-Have-You in this article, for the same obvious reasons.--Lubiesque (talk) 17:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is better known popularly as Hugh Trevor-Roper, certainly. However, from his elevation to the peerage in 1979 as Lord Dacre of Glanton, he himself usually went under that title. For the remaining almost 24 years of his life, up until his death in early 2003, he was usually known, during that part of his lifetime, as Lord Dacre of Glanton. Laggan Boy (talk) 17:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much everyone else referred to him (as they still do) as Hugh Trevor-Roper. (cf the points about the name of his article and how many books are published under the Dacre name v against the Trevor-Roper name). And it's not true to say that "he himself usually went under that title": The Golden Age of Europe: From Elizabeth I to the Sun King was published in 1987. He edited it under which name? His 1985 work Renaissance Essays was published under which name? I've included links to the covers of the editions from the dates shown. He went by Trevor-Roper professionally, which is what he was acting as here. - SchroCat (talk) 18:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, he usually appeared in the media at the time, between his elevation to the peerage in 1979 and his death in early 2003, as Lord Dacre of Glanton. For example, if he was interviewed by the BBC during those years, he was usually referred to as Lord Dacre of Glanton. However, if the consensus is that he should be referred to as Hugh Trevor-Roper in this article, then I will abide by that. Laggan Boy (talk) 22:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current consensus is that Trevor-Roper is correct. Again, I doubt your claim as to what he “usually” went by, even on the BBC: aside from Desert Island Discs, where he was called Dacre, the rest of his credits were as HT-R. As a historian, he went by Trevor-Roper, as has already been shown to you. His actions in the Hitler Diaries fiasco were as a historian. I’m going to step away now, as there is no point continuing this - unless you would like me to show more uses of him calling himself Trevor-Roper after he picked up his title? - SchroCat (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the man in question here is almost always referred to as Trevor-Roper in sources on this topic, and other sources covering the rest of his life. Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Nick-D that Trevor-Roper was generally known by his unlordly name. A bit perverse, and confusing to the casual visitor, to call him Dacre, a bit like calling Robert Walpole "Orford" or H. H. Asquith "Oxford and Asquith". Tim riley talk 18:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough. I accept the consensus. Just thought I'd put it to a discussion, as it were. Laggan Boy (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary personalisation
Calm down, mate!! Didn't I already say that I would abide by the consensus? No need to be so narky about it all!! I was only having what I thought was a civilised discussion. As it happens, I am a graduate in history myself, so I am well aware of the life and works of the late Lord Dacre of Glanton. Laggan Boy (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment, by the way, was in reply to SchroCat. Laggan Boy (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a bizarre set of comments. I am calm and have been throughout - I'm not sure how you read anything else in there, and there really is no need to personalise things. I'll step away again now and hope this doesn't turn personal again. - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even the passive aggressive use of the word 'bizarre'!! You just can't help yourself, sunshine. Your comments above were quite narky. If you don't see that, then I don't know. Laggan Boy (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Calm down, mate!!" "You just can't help yourself, sunshine": accusing me a passive aggressive behaviour and being less than passive in your aggressive responses is more than narky. Please take it down a couple of notches and stop personalising things. - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
