Talk:Andrew Roberts, Baron Roberts of Belgravia

Notability

A complete nonentity. This shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Anonymous User 66.248.97.105

He has written fifteen books, presented 2 tv series, appeared on numerous current affairs shows and has articles published in the national press on a weekly basis. What more must the man do? Boddah 00:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

He isnt a historian. There is no research in his books. They are based on secondary sources.

Actually, if I recall correctly he did a lot of primary research for his biographies of Halifax and Salisbury. Yes, he is not an academic historian, he is one of those pop-historians, however a very prominent one whose work has earned him two prizes and praise from historians such as Michael Burghleigh, Richard Overy, Niall Ferguson, Saul David, David Chandler and Lawrence James. Just because he relies a lot on secondary sources doesn't make him a poor historian. Simon Schama relies on secondary source heavily as well. Is he also not an historian?

Simon Schama's speciality is in history of art. His "History of Britain" is not work of "academic" history. Similarly, "brief history of time" by S Hawking will not generate any academic citation from peer reviewed journals. Any history undergraduate student could read articles/books written by academic historians, check the footnotes and appropriate the primary source for their assignment.

If AR write history book/article, he is entitled to call himself a historian. If he makes a living out of it, he is a professional historian. If Andrew Roberts want to call himself an "academic" historian, then he need to get something published or cited in a peer reviewed academic journal of history. And I should mention that sociology/political journal don't count. Work of Hawking in French post modern academic journal do noting for Hawking's standing in physics. Given that AR hasn't produced anything from citation index database, which would be a quick and conclusive proof of him being a "serious" historian, I'm assuming he has none. Vapour (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone added that his work is indeed cited in peer review history journals. I would like to see the proof of it. I added {citation}. I'll leave it for a while. If source doesn't turn up, that part will be removed. Vapour (talk)

Virtual History ISBN

I couldn't find an ISBN similar to 10987654321 anywhere for this book. I added the ISBN for the first London edition.

Anti War?

I'm pretty sure he appeared on Newsnight in the run up to the Iraq War and was strongly in favour of the war, saying that weapon inspections were pointless. He had an argument with Mary Warnock over the rights and wrongs of invasion and accused those against the war of being the same as pre-WW2 appeasers. I don't know where the assertion about him being against the war comes from. 217.196.239.189 18:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Youthful misdemeanours

The list of pranks for which he was expelled from Cranleigh goes beyond what's found in the reference (which mentions only chapel roof climbing). Anyone want to provide a source for his statue painting and lavatory clingfilming? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gareth McCaughan (talk • contribs) 22:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC). Oops, yes, it was. Sorry about that. Gareth McCaughan 01:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Reported Inaccuracies

Should reports about inaccuracies in "A History" be noted? For example http://www.slate.com/id/2162837?nav=tap3

Nothing has been noted about his support for the "whiteman's burden" of imperialism for both the UK and the new American Empire. There is a reason he is Bush's favorite historian. Seen TNR - White Man For the Job. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=rgEIzSVsAzw1JcO3DnkA6i%3D%3D

Good point. Read the article and added some text and a reference. MOXFYRE (contrib) 01:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Reported Irrelevancies

Do we really need to know which football team the blighter supports? Is it essential to record which car he drove at Cambridge? More criticism of his book (or at least a summary of what passes for its argument)would not go amiss, and less dreary dwelling on his personal eccentricities. Also, can someone confirm that he is still an honorary scholar at Gonville and Caius, Cambridge? I have never come across the man in the History faculty, and there is no reference to him on the Caius website.

Also - and it pains me to raise this topic again - Roberts is a writer of history, but is he really a historian? His highest academic accolade (that is not from Missoura) is an honours degree. That hardly makes him an academic historian.

He isnt a historian. He writes and comments about history. He doesnt hold an academic position. His writing is not based on primary historical research.

Actually his highest accolade is the two awards for his biography on Salisbury.

• A little unfair - I don't have much time for the man either (his recent books read like prep school history essays), but I don't think anyone has suggested his books are unscholarly trash, whether they agree with his views or not. His early book on Halifax was pretty decent as well. And doesn't sneering at him like that come across as sour grapes at a man who presumably makes a tidy living writing history for the general reader? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.192.0.10 (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Constant Removal of Material

Some individual, or individuals, possibly even Andrew Roberts himself, is clearly intent on removing sourced, factual information on this article if it is deemed to show Roberts in a bad light. It is a fact of reality that Roberts adressed the racist, pro-Apartheid Springbok Club, regardless of whatever he claims he knew about the club beforehand, and that he has been accused of making arguments in favour of genocide. These may be uncomfortable facts that Roberts and his friends would rather not have brought to attention but this is Wikipedia, not Hagiography Central. By any stretch this information is notable, and it is presented in neutral, unbiased language. The constant removal of this information is obviously a concerted attempt by some of Roberts' like-minded fans, or perhaps some associates or even the man himself, to keep unpleasant and/or embarrassing facts about the man off Wikipedia. It's been removed and put back dozens of times now, it happens at least every couple of weeks and it's outrageous to just keep removing factual material because it might show the subject in a bad light. In fact, it's vandalism. It should stop, or the article should get protected. And if it is actually Roberts himself trying to whitewash his own biography, maybe he should think twice in future unless he wants to make a very embarrassing appearance in the 'Wikipedia Whispers' section of Private Eye magazine and draw a great deal more attention to these episodes and the efforts to write them out of history. 217.38.66.40 19:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The entry on Roberts seems to contain more personal material than in entries of other historians. Why is this?

He is most famous to the non-history reading public as someone who strongly supported the Iraq war over many months and on many programs/articles. Yet he or his supporters remove every day in their clean up of his site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.240.81 (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It is extraordinary that a historian (of all people) is so keen to rewrite history with these daily rewrites of the website to make it more complimentary. Most people have heard of Andrew Roberts mainly because of his numerous appearances on TV during the buildup to the Iraq war when he made an impassioned case for war, saying that "Blair was playing a blinder" in his foreign policy, and likening the entire episode to the late 1930's. This is historical fact. Roberts and his supporters are trying to whitewash it out of this webpage, which is disgraceful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.125.170 (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed this content because it is unsourced. I am not 'whitewashing' -- my only interest is that this article adheres to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Please read this link. It doesn't matter if you think it is a 'historical fact' -- you still need to provide a reliable source to support this content. You are welcome to add it back to the article when you do. Barret (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP issues

I removed that two blocks of text that contained poorly sourced controversial information (see this diff). One was sourced to an article at The New Republic that does not exist. The other was, incredibly, sourced to Private Eye. CIreland (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree wioth you about Private Eye, which is not a reliable source, but the New Republic article does indeed exist, although it is now behind a paywall. To access it, go here: http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=1100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.133.222 (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to put it back, it should be sourced to the relevant print issue of New Republic and cut down a little to the bare facts. It's only one person's commentary and over-emphasizing it would be undue weight. If you have other similar sources then that could justify a fuller treatment. CIreland (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It is sourced to the relevant issue of TNR - look at the links, they show the exact date. I think it is already cut down to the bare facts - it is a summary of a 3000 word article that caused much discussion into less than 100 words, and represents wider criticisms of Roberts not currently reflected in the entry. I do however agree with you about Private Eye.

Disambiguation

I disagree with the use of the Andrew Roberts page as a disambiguation article as the vast majority of people searching for "Andrew Roberts" are going to be looking for the historian rather than a hedge fund businessman, the article for which is currently nominated for deletion. If that article survives the link to it should appear at the top of the historian's article with a See also tag rather than a disambiguation page at "Andrew Roberts".--Johnbull (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Some absurd puffery and POV claims had been placed in this entry.

I've pared out the obvious self-advertisements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.159.40 (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This page is being repeatedly vandalised by a user - almost certaionly Roberts himself- removing well-sourced material and inserting absurd puffery. It has to stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.140.98 (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The Original Entry had only 1 reference

The opposite is true. The original entry was not objective at all. The tone was much too personalised- drunk at at school (I think we've all been there) if you look at other entries on historians- e.g. Anthony Beevor- Anne Applebaun- much more objective entries. Some of the statements made in the original are potentially libellous- making 'links' with far right- that are unproven (remember the 1983 Panorama programma 'Maggie's Militant Tendency': BBC ended up paying £1 milion in libel over that) The problem was the original entry had no footnotes and was too personal.

In fact, it has links to all the criticisms made, sourcing them to impeccablly reliable outlets like The New Republic and the BBC. You must stop rmeoving well-sourced material and replacing it with absurd puff-claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.35.253 (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There were useful links removed relevant to the books- and 14 references to clear sources.- Referenced material still beind deleted- by Frederic Smoller. highly respected US journalist and writer, —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned 15:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, accusing someone of being far right isn't libellous. Secondly, even it is, published opinion about Robert will count not matter how much you disagree with it. If someone claim in Gurdian that Robert approve of having sex with donkey, the fact that it was published in a established news media protect it from being deleted. It is upto Robert to sue Guardian and force it to retract.Vapour (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry that I had to reverse the whole page. The reason I did it was that you seem to have eliminated number of statements which have proper citation from media or academia. This is not a good practice from neutrality point of view. Since you've done the removals over long string of edit, it is rather difficult to recover individual removal. I have no problem if you attempt to recover your edit which has proper citation from established source. Vapour (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not Hari who called him "extremely right wing", that is Roberts' description of himself, in an interview with the Fianncial Times! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.35.253 (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not quite relevant from wikipedia point of view to have both for/against view. Only relevance is to have verified view from media/academia. If someone accused Roberts of being a Maoist, in Fox News, then that reference should not be deleted. You are free to reference any published support for Roberts. Please respect others' freedom to do something likewise. Vapour (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Section Needs An Edit

re: "However, The Economist drew attention to a number of historical, geographical errors, and typos[12]"

I cannot access the Economist link as it is a subscription service so the entry needs removing, all references need to freely available in the public domain on line without drawing on so called monetary-based 'free trials' Twobells (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, "Roberts claimed he did not realise the Springbok Club was racist when he took on the speaking engagement. Hari responded with lengthy quotes from Roberts' work which he claimed contradicted this.[14]"

Needs removing also as the link doesn't direct you to anything apart from a wiki entry on some magazine! Twobells (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"The journalist Johann Hari has made some criticisms of Roberts. In an April 2007 article in The New Republic Johann Hari accused Roberts of supporting massacres against civilians, including the 1919 Amritsar massacre, which Roberts called "necessary", and British concentration camps built during the Boer War (1899–1902), using quotes from Roberts's books on Salisbury and A History of the English Speaking People."

Again no direct reference link!Twobells (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed the 'Irish' criticism paragraph as neither reference makes an issue or criticizes of him over his dislike of all things Irish, it just states that he wrote it.Twobells (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact why is there even a 'criticism' section? Good wiki writing dictates that editors should place these entries into the main piece rather than have a separate section.Twobells (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Errr....where does it say in Wikipedia that only free content can be cited? Please provide the citation if this is the case. I think it is unlikely, particularly as so much of the media is moving rapidly towards paying for content. If this rule was applied, then most of Wikipedia would have to deleted. The Economist is a perfectly reputable source, and had some detailed criticisms of Roberts work, pointing out widespread factual errors.

If you think "Good wiki writing dictates that editors should place these entries into the main piece rather than have a separate section" why didnt you do this? It is a cover for deleting material. There is a small army of Roberts propagandists who are constantly trying to turn this wikipedia page into hagiography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.202.109 (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There is zero requirement that sources be free-to-view online. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed sentence

I've removed : "At Cranleigh's, he was expelled for drinking, climbing on a roof and cling-filming the lavatories. He went on to a Cambridge crammer to prepare for his Oxbridge exam and was admitted to Cambridge. His 'teenage rebellion' phase now ended, he buckled down to studying.[ref]Thomas, David (11 February 2003). "Churchill, Hitler and me". The Daily Telegraph. London.[ref]" - Roberts gave the Lees Knowles lecture in Cambridge this evening and it was used in his intro but he denies the story. So we should take it down per BLP. NBeale (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Fourth World War and Islamofascism

While of course anyone is entitled to edit this page, I think if important biographical details are removed, the removal should be justified on the discussion page. Recently SOCAMX removed references to Islamofascism and the 4th World War. Yet to many people in the UK, Andrew Roberts is notable for being one of the most prominent advocates of this conflict. During the build up to the war, he appeared frequently on television, arguing passionately for an invasion. Since the war started, he has written extensively about the Fourth World War and idea of Islamofascism as an equivalent force to Nazism. It is therefore reasonable to have this in his Wikipedia biography. Removing this material looks uncomfortably like an attempt to clean up history, and it is ironic that it happens so often on this historians wiki page.