Talk:Roger Scruton/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Nominated for the main page at ITN

{{ITN nom}} -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

'Other views' section

"In 2014, Scruton stated that he supported English independence because he believed that it would uphold friendship between England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and because the English would have a say in all matters."

The trouble here is that the source cited is an article about Scottish independence, in which the final paragraph - which is what the citation relies upon - unaccountably uses the phrase "English independence":

"Suppose then we English were finally allowed a say in the matter, which way would I vote? I have no doubt about it. I would vote for English independence, as a step towards strengthening the friendship between our countries" - "the matter" being Scottish independence.

I regard the BBC article as an unreliable source that has probably been mistranscribed, producing a contradiction in its text. Harfarhs (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

He seems to have intended "English". Earlier in the article, he says:

In response to Alex Salmond's bid for independence the people of Scotland have been granted another referendum. But again the people of England have been deprived of a say. Why is this? ... What way should we English vote, given that the present arrangement gives two votes to the Scots for every vote given to the English? Should we not vote for our independence, given that we risk being governed from a country that already regulates its own affairs, and has no clear commitment to ours?

SarahSV ^(talk) 19:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Marriage to Danielle Laffitte

In the box at the right, the year is shown as 1973 — but under Birkbeck, first marriage the year is given as 1972. Which is correct? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph says 1973: [1]. The current source in the text, which is The Guardian, also gives 1973, so I've corrected it. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Third party refs

Primary refs, i.e. material written by Scruton, don't establish notability. We need 3rd party refs to establish the notability of obscure material mentioned in the article. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I assume you just mean "the more obscure items need secondary sources". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

We don't need to establish "notability" for uncontentious bits of his bio that he himself has offered. Richard, please stop removing details and in particular changing the quotation. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there any agreed criterion for what is "obscure material mentioned in the article"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The same details have been removed again. Espresso Addict, can you explain why it's a problem to say that he lived with his parents, two sisters and the dog? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The whole article reads in a rather odd, overdetailed and chatty style, but this stuck out as particularly unencyclopedic. The sisters are previously mentioned, and it would be assumed that he lived with his parents as a minor. Is the dog relevant to his adult views? Espresso Addict (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I must admit I found your removal quite surprising. The edit summary was "Pruning"? For that matter, were his sisters "relevant to his adult views"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Why would the dog have to be relevant to his adult views? He called "Growing up with Sam" (Sam the dog, then Sam the horse, then Sam his son), a chapter in Gentle Regrets, one of the best things he'd ever written. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

We always mention siblings, when do we mention dogs? Unless of course dogs play an important in the life of the individual. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Sarah SV For uncontested info of course primary sources are fine, as they are for inherently notable information such as where he went to school. But re the dog two editors have contested the notability of this, therefore in this case we do need 3rd aprty refs. The same applies with anything I removed, by removing I am contesting and on the grounds of notability not veracity. Third aprty refs are great for conforming something which an editor contests is notable. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Richard, two questions. Have you read "Growing up with Sam"? And can you point me to the policy you're relying on? SarahSV ^(talk) 17:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's the original passage about Sam from Scruton's book. Oh look, and here's Paddy with the later Sam. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Sarah SV, Wikipedia:Notability says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Also this this good article review which says "An encyclopedia article needs to be written overwhelmingly from third-party sources: otherwise all someone has to do to get a glowing WP article is persuade a publisher to publish their autobiography." I haven't read what you refer to but nor do I understand why that might be relevant, given it is a primary source. If we can find a third-party source about the dog I'd happily see it included, same as with the type of house he lived in. I'm okay keeping the half-naked lady piece as this has a third-party source and so notability has been established. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

We even have a template for this. IMO the article suffers from this issue but I'd rather fix it than tag it.

♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

While here Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources it states "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources" so it seems pretty clear to me that secondary or third-party sources establish notability, primary sources don't. Something I've incorporated into my editing for many years. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Mention of his childhood's family dog, a whole four words "and Sam the dog"? You don't think you're making a mountain over a molehill, here? I really don't see how that is a "novel interpretation of primary sources." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

RichardWeiss, Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline describing how to judge whether a topic is notable enough for an article. It says explicitly: "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it."

Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources also doesn't support what you're doing here. The point is that Scruton wrote in detail about Sam the dog. Sam the dog mattered to him. So we mentioned Sam briefly. End of story. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've linked the relevant chapter from his book above. Editors can read it and judge for themselves. Interesting that his son is also called Sam. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget Sam the horse: "A randy mongrel, a horse of preternatural cunning, a precious baby son. All of them share a name, and all transformed Roger Scruton's world" (The Times, publishing an extract from Gentle Regrets). SarahSV ^(talk) 22:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Incept

"Scruton's BA was incepted as an MA in 1967." This usage, currently in footnote [a], doesn't seem to match the definitions in Wiktionary, which emphasise the beginning of something: "To begin a Master of Arts degree at a university". Please clarify. Davidships (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This claim seems to be currently unsourced. So I have added a tag. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this may be the old University of Cambridge practice of converting Cambridge BAs to MAs. It used to cost £10 back in the day. Kerching! -- The Anome (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you are probably right. And that BBC source uses the word "upgrade", which might be a lot clearer for everyone? e.g. "Scruton's BA was upgraded to an MA in 1967." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - that seems to make more sense. Davidships (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

References

The thesis ot Thiery Baudet "!e Significance of Borders"

For this thesis there where 2 promoters Prof. dr. P.B. Cliteur Prof. dr. R. Scruton (University of Oxford, UK) https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/19141/Baudet%20PhD%20proof.pdf

I guess R. Scruton was this person. I don't know fore sure, he had links with Oxford and he is mentioned here as from Oxford University. I think it may be considered that this role as promoter may be mentioned at the main page. I say this while the author of that thesis got's a lot of critic recently while defending anti-Semitic and conspiracy theories about the corona virus. 'His' 'big' party, FVD, looks to fall apart.

Who got also critic is the other promoter, Prof Cliteur, known as his mentor and also member of this party. The press is asking him to resign of his role in the University of Leiden. Because of the anti-Semitic points of view of Baudet but also when he stood by not reacting to the anti scientific attitude of that party while working as professor and the climate denial what is also seen as an anti scientific attitude.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cliteur https://www.en24news.com/2020/12/cliteur-under-fire-at-university.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.105.194 (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Education - unclear

The second paragraph under Education ("After passing his 11-plus,") is unclear. He got expelled from the school, but AFTER he got his A-levels? Perhaps this requires more understanding of the British education system, but as is it seems unclear. (Or was he expelled from Jesus College? The next paragraph suggests not.) Davidswelt (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

IN MEMORY OF IRAN   By Roger Scruton (10/12/88)

IN MEMORY OF IRAN 

 By Roger Scruton (10/12/88)

 

 Who remembers Iran? Who remembers, that is, the shameful

stampede of Western journalists and intellectuals to the cause of

the Iranian revolution? Who remembers the hysterical propaganda

campaign waged against the Shah, the lurid press reports of

corruption, police oppression, palace decadence, constitutional

crisis? Who remembers the thousands of Iranian students in

Western universities enthusiastically absorbing the fashionable

Marxist nonsense purveyed to them by armchair radicals, so as one

day to lead the campaign of riot and mendacity which preceded the

Shah's downfall?

 Who remembers the behaviour of those students who held as

hostage the envoys of the very same power which had provided

their 'education'? Who remembers Edward Kennedy's accusation

that the Shah had presided over 'one of the most oppressive

regimes in history' and had stolen 'umpteen billions of dollars

from Iran'?

 And who remembers the occasional truth that our journalists

enabled us to glimpse, concerning the Shah's real achievements:

his successes in combating the illiteracy, backwardness and

powerlessness of his country, his enlightened economic policy,

the reforms which might have saved his people from the tyranny of

evil mullahs, had he been given the chance to accomplish them?

Who remembers the freedom and security in which journalists could

roam Iran, gathering the gossip that would fuel their fanciful

stories of a reign of terror?

 True, the Shah was an autocrat. But autocracy and tyranny are

not the same. An autocrat may preside, as the Shah sought to

preside, over a representative parliament, over an independent

judiciary, even over a free press and an autonomous university.

The Shah, like Kemal Ataturk [umlaut over the 'u'], whose vision

he shared, regarded his autocracy as the means to the creation

and protection of such institutions. Why did no one among the

Western political scientists trouble to point this out, or to

rehearse the theory which tells us to esteem not just the

democratic process, but also the representative and limiting

institutions which may still flourish in its absence? Why did no

one enjoin us to compare the political system of Iran with that

of Iraq or Syria?

 Why did our political scientists rush to embrace the Iranian

revolution, despite the evidence that revolution under these

circumstances must be the prelude to massive social disorder and

a regime of terror? Why did the Western intelligentsia go on

repeating the myth that the Shah was to blame for this

revolution, when both Khomeini and the Marxists had been planning

it for 30 years and had found, despite their many attempts to put

it into operation, only spasmodic popular support?

 The answer to all those questions is simple. The Shah was an

ally of the West, whose achievement in establishing limited

monarchy in a vital strategic region had helped to guarantee our

security, to bring stability to the Middle East and to deter

Soviet expansion. The Shah made the fatal mistake of supposing

that the makers of Western opinion would love him for creating

conditions which guaranteed their freedom. On the contrary, they

hated him. The Shah had reckoned without the great death wish

which haunts our civilisation and which causes its vociferous

members to propagate any falsehood, however absurd, provided only

that it damages our chances of survival.

 For a while, of course, those vociferous elements will remain

silent on the embarrassing topic of Iran, believing that the

collapse of Iranian institutions, the establishment of religious

terror, the Soviet expansion into Afghanistan and the end of

stability in the region are all due to some other cause than the

Iranian revolution. Those who lent their support to this tragedy

simply turned their back on it and went elsewhere, to prepare a

similar outcome for the people of Turkey, Nicaragua, El Salvador,

Chile, South Africa -- or wherever else our vital interests may

be damaged.

 Of course, it is difficult now for a Western

correspondent to enter Iran, and if he did so it would not be for

fun. He could not, like the ghouls who send their despatches

from Beirut, adopt a public posture of the front-line hero. He

would have to witness, quietly and in terror of his life, things

which beggar description: the spontaneous 'justice' of the

revolutionary guards, the appalling scenes of violence, torture

and demonic frenzy, the public humiliation of women, the daily

sacrifice of lives too young to be conscious of the meaning for

which they are condemned to destruction.

 He would also have to confront the truth which has been

staring him in the face for years, and which he could still

recognise had the habit of confessing his errors been preserved:

the truth that limited monarchy is the right form of government

for Iran, which can be saved only by the restoration of the

Shah's legitimate successor. But such a result would be in the

interests not only of the Iranian people, but also of the West.

Hence few Western journalists are likely to entertain it. 5.115.248.87 (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

School

Unlikely Jack Scruton went to Manchester High School as it's a girls' school 87.254.85.136 (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

monograph on Roger Scruton

Ferenc Hörcher: Art and Politics in Roger Scruton's Conservative Philosophy https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-13591-0 89.133.15.146 (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)