Talk:Roger Scruton/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Called to the Bar?

The article states that Scruton "was called to the Bar in 1978". What does this mean?

Being called to the Bar means that you have become a Barrister. A barrister is one of two types of lawyer in England and Wales, the other type being a Solicitor.

PLEASE, add the pronunciation of 'Scruton' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.194.58 (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[ˌɹɒʤəˈskɹuːtə̆n], as uttered by the man himself here (at around 2:29). Raifʻhār Doremítzwr (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Really a philosopher?

whilst i understand that this man spent some time reading philosophy books at an elitist university when he was younger, can he really be considered a 'philosopher' ? according to this lengthy article he seems to have dedicated a large part of his life to the subject but has contibuted nothing above and beyond his opinion on the work of others. the article is not able to ascribe any original thought or novel constructive approach attributable to him personally, therefore his placing as a philosopher seems unjustified and grandiose. compare, for example Kant, Leibniz, Foucault, Lacan, Zizek etc. Their contribution to understanding is clear and deserving of the term 'philosophy'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.192.196 (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Scruton is professionally trained as a philosopher, and has written numerous books expounding his own original views. Many people might dispute or disagree with his views, but there is no question he is a philosopher. Gigi-Ko! (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Roger Scruton is most certainly a philosopher. His main contributions to philosophy have been in the field of aesthetics. 94.193.65.163 (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Is his middle name really Vernon?

In his collection of autobiographical accounts 'Gentle Regrets' Scruton writes about how his mother originally wished to call him Vernon but due to his father's insistence he was named Roger instead. Scruton says that he was known as Vernon to his relatives but at no point does he make any suggestion that Vernon actually became his middle name - which would seem strange given that the whole chapter ('How I discovered my name') is dedicated to this topic. Does anyone have a source which can definitively settle this? 94.193.65.163 (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Scruton's sexual philosophy

I see that there has recently been an attempt to remove material about Scruton's views on sex, as expounded in his book Sexual Desire. I have restored that material, since it is properly sourced. However, I think it's highly unfortunate that the article currently includes only critical material about Scruton's views - it's an unbalanced approach, and may violate neutral point of view. The solution is not to remove the material that is there at the moment: it is to add favourable material about Scruton's views, which can also be found in reliable sources (including the recently published biography of Scruton, and Martha Nussbaum's review of Sexual Desire in the New York Review of Books, which is partly favourable to Scruton even though she disagrees with him on some issues), so that readers can learn about the range of responses Scruton's views have provoked. UserVOBO (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course a balanced approach like that is called for. Jprw (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Guardian interview

I would like to thank Nandt1 for finding the recent Guardian interview with Scruton - it's an important addition, and including it helps to make the article fairer and bring it up to date. However, I have felt it necessary to modify the addition by removing the commentary on the interview (eg, the part about how Scruton "made clear that he no longer stands by the views on homosexuality expressed in his earlier essay"). The commentary looks like a WP:NOR violation. Scruton may very likely be referring to his "Sexual morality and the liberal consensus" essay in the Guardian interview, but that's not made fully clear, and we can't speculate or assert our own opinions about this. UserVOBO (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree. Jprw (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It seemed to me entirely clear that these were the views he was explicitly disavowing. But if you really cannot see that I will try to make the text just a tad more subtle. Nandt1 (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian interview is a necessary addition, but unfortunately the way it is described in the article illustrates the problems involved in using what is basically a primary source - a person's own words as reported in an interview - as material for a BLP. While Scruton is probably referring to "Sexual morality and the liberal consensus", we don't know that for sure; saying that "Scruton explained that he had changed his position on homosexuality since writing an essay on the subject" is not really an improvement over what was in the article before since it implies vaguely that he was referring to that article. It tells readers nothing that they couldn't work out for themselves, and it only confuses matters. If we knew for sure that he was referring to that article, we should just say that; since we don't, we shouldn't be implying it at all. As currently written, the article suggests that Scruton has abandoned his former position that homosexual acts should be illegal. Perhaps he has, but he doesn't actually say that in the Guardian interview - he only says that he wouldn't now defend his past position that it's possible to justify people feeling repelled by homosexual behavior. That isn't necessarily the same thing as saying that homosexual behavior should be legal. UserVOBO (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, Let's tackle this controversy at two levels.

AAA If we are going to apply the "no original research" principle in its strictest possible way, what I have written is absolutely 100% justified by what is in the Scruton quote: (1) In the past he wrote an essay about homosexuality; (2) He now says that he no longer stands behind the views expressed in the essay. As the Americans like to say: Period.

BBB If it had not been for the objections raised to my previous formulation, I would have been prepared to go further, since I am not convinced that the application of logic and a critical intelligence to what one reads should be classified as "original research". Consider what one would need to believe if one wanted to argue that it is not the essay named "Sexual Morality and the Liberal Consensus(SMLC)" that he is disavowing:

(1) Scruton writes two different essays about homosexuality, each of which (separately) explores whether there are social benefits that might be connected to disapproval/prohibition of homosexuality, and concludes that there may indeed be such benefits (e.g., expanded recruitment to the priesthood).

(2) Each of this essays (separately) attracts considerable attention (our article has documented reactions to SMLC but "people got very cross," on this assumption, about the "other" essay). Yet the "other" essay (henceforth, Essay X) does not attract the notice of those who have compiled our article.

(3) When interviewed by The Guardian, Scruton neglects to mention that he has written two essays on the same lines. He talks about an essay (meaning Essay X) without differentiating it from SMLC. In disavowing the views in Essay X, Scruton actually intends not to disavow the (apparently more-or-less identical) views expressed in SMLC, but he neglects to tell the interviewer that he is disavowing the one but not the other.....

Out of concern that the above logical sequence will be dismissed as "original research" I have compromised on the much more cautious formulation set out in Section AAA above. But to argue that even the AAA formulation goes too far is, I'm afraid, well beyond me. Nandt1 (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The words you prefaced the quote from Scruton with are, "Scruton explained that he had changed his position on homosexuality since writing an essay on the subject." That is not justified by the quotation, because quite simply Scruton does not say that. Nothing like the words "I changed my position on homosexuality" are present there, nor is anything that could be summarized that way. Scruton indicates that he has abandoned his past view that it's possible to justify people being repelled by homosexual behavior, but that is all. He does not say that he has "changed his position on homosexuality", which would mean abandoning all of his past views on homosexuality. Whether Scruton has in fact changed his position in such a comprehensive way is not for us to speculate about, per WP:NOR and per WP:NPOV too.
Consider that even if you are right and the words you added are fully justified by the source, it's not necessary to add them. If you're right, people will simply read the quote from Scruton and see that it says what you think it says. Let's respect the intelligence of Wikipedia readers and assume that they can understand the Scruton quote without our commentary on it. We don't need to use seventeen words ("Scruton explained that he had changed his position on homosexuality since writing an essay on the subject") when just two ("Scruton stated") would do, or try to encourage Wikipedia readers to adopt the conclusion we may think correct. UserVOBO (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Goodness me, I disagree with this set of arguments!

AAA. As a sheer matter of language, to say that Mr. X has "changed his position" on one issue or another does not require us to demonstrate that he has reversed 100% of the views he has ever expressed regarding this issue, but rather that he has made some appreciable change in his earlier views.

BBB. RS says "in that essay I experimented with" whether one could find a social justification for aversion to homosexuality (similar to that which most feel for incest). "And I don't now agree with that, because I think that – it's such a complicated thing, homosexuality. It's not one thing, anyway. So I wouldn't stand by what I said then" I understand from this that he is saying that, after previously maintaining the possibility there could be a social justification for aversion to homosexuality, he now no longer seeks to maintain that such a justification exists. [From there, indeed, applying mere logic (and we are dealing, after all, with a professional philosopher, who is very versed in logic -- it is part of what they study and teach), if one no longer stands by the view that there is a social justification for aversion to homosexuality, then it is fair to expect that he would also change his view on the possible justification for restrictions on homosexuality. Just to make sure we are clear here, though -- reverting back to AAA above -- I am not sure that we need to argue that RS has made as fundamental a reversal as I am suggesting here that he has made, in order to be able to say that he has changed his position...]

CCC. All this said, you seem finally to argue that even if a noted public commentator has walked away from some of his most contentious (and most highly publicized) views, our text should not note the discontinuity, but just leave our readers to figure it out for themselves. Why on earth would we want to do that? A decent commentary helps to signpost the way for the reader, including saying, as it were "Here is a fork in the road". If we accept this as a general principle of how we as writers help our readers find their way, I just can't see what would be wrong with doing so in this context? Nandt1 (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In an attempt to reach for common ground -- and although I think there was nothing wrong with the previous formulation -- I am going to try replacing "position" by "views". Nandt1 (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Nandt1, you have described Scruton's views in "Sexual morality and the liberal consensus" (eg, that homosexual acts should be illegal) in the past tense. Apparently you've done this because you think Scruton has now abandoned that position. You do not know that for a fact. Scruton does not say in The Guardian interview that homosexual acts should be legal, or that he has abandoned his past position in favour of their being criminalized. Instead, he makes some rather general comments that could be interpreted in a number of different ways - they might imply that he has changed his mind about the issue of whether homosexual behavior should be legal, but they do not necessarily do so. So your justification for describing his views in the past tense is flawed. Simply as a matter of style, the change is in no sense an improvement. Describing someone's views partly in the present tense and partly in the past tense reads very strangely, and to do it because one supposes that he still upholds some of them but has abandoned others is a fairly serious violation of WP:NPOV. I don't think that you can even begin to justify that - how do you know, for example, that he still holds those views that you've described in the present tense?
Regarding the "changed his position" part - what those words imply depends on the context. In this context, they imply that Scruton has abandoned his view that homosexual acts should be illegal, which as noted, is just a matter of your personal opinion and interpretation of the source. So that's unacceptable.
Your suggestion that we need to apply "logic" here is frankly an insult to the intelligence of Wikipedia readers, as it implies that they are unable to use "logic" themselves. It's precisely because they are capable of doing that that we don't need to offer our commentary on Scruton's comments. You are apparently arguing both that your interpretation of Scruton's comments is the only possible correct one, and also that readers somehow need to be told that that it's correct - but if you're right about the first half of that, then obviously readers don't need you to spell things out for them. Your arguments I'm afraid, look like a rationalization for abandoning WP:NOR. It's our job as Wikipedia editors just to state the facts, not to force-feed people our preferred version of the Truth. UserVOBO (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
In the 2010 Guardian interview, he talks about the views in his 1989 essay, which he says he doesn't stand by, but he makes no mention of his more recent views, e.g. the views he expressed in 2007. [1] So we need to be careful not to put words in his mouth about what he does and doesn't believe now, because it's far from clear. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for placing the description of Scruton's views in "Sexual morality and the liberal consensus" back into present tense. I personally wouldn't want to place the words "he said of his 1989 essay" in front of the quotation from the Guardian interview with Scruton. I understand the rationale for it perfectly well, but technically speaking, I think it's still original research; in the article, he refers only to "that essay." Since it's a sensitive point, I have no intention of removing it without consensus. UserVOBO (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I see what you mean, and I hesitated myself before writing it for the same reason. But it's a famous essay, the only famous essay of his on that subject. And if we don't add the context, it sounds as though he's repudiating his more recent views too (e.g. the 2007 Telegraph views), which I think he is not. That's the problem: what we write will either be misleading or OR. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
In principle, the ideal way of dealing with this is to simply quote Scruton and summarize what published sources say about his views, with the absolute minimum of our own interpretation and commentary. What conclusions readers draw from that is up to them. If they somehow misunderstand things, that's unfortunate, but it's regrettable if we start to bend WP policy to avoid possible misunderstandings. As both SlimVirgin and Nandt1 seem to consider some comment on Scruton's Guardian interview necessary, I won't remove it, but this doesn't change the likelihood of it being contested in the future, I'm afraid. UserVOBO (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I can certainly live with the current formulation (I think from SlimVirgin?) on the Guardian interview. But I think she may have gone beyond what the source says in respect of the Daily Telegraph piece. The text draft reported RS as arguing there against the normalization of same-sex marriage and gay adoption. But as I read the Telegraph piece closely, I think there is a distinction to be made in terms of what RS actually says about these two different issues.

AAA. It seems to me clear that he is arguing against any assumption that gays have a right to adopt children -- that is really the key argument of the article.

BBB. His treatment of same-sex marriage is much less direct. He alludes to the fact that many people of a religious nature frown on gay marriage. I think one could suggest that he refers to their disapproval from what may be read as a sympathetic position. But I do not see him as explicitly coming out and saying -- and therefore, society should not accept same-sex marriage.

I will try to propose language. Nandt1 (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit of your edit, Nandt. [2] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe the previous version of that material was clearer, and have restored it.
Changing the wording of the comment on Scruton's Guardian interview to say that it dealt with his view that "homophobia is understandable" wasn't a good idea - it's just as much original research as what was there before, and unlike the previous comment, it can be seen as potentially defamatory and as a serious BLP violation. UserVOBO (talk) 05:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It is what the Guardian says. You asked that we stick very closely to the source, so that's what I did. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
What it says, to be exact, is "In the past Scruton has written that homophobia is understandable." That was not what you added, which suggests that Scruton now, in the present, believes that "homophobia is understandable." In any case, you didn't summarize the opinion of the Guardian writer in anything like a neutral way. You made it look as though Scruton has actually written something like, "Homophobia is understandable", using those words, which he hasn't. UserVOBO (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
That was the context of the Guardian question about his current attitudes. That is all we have about the context. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I haven't any idea what you mean by that. The problem as I see it is that if readers of an encyclopedia come across a statement such as, "He was asked about his view that homophobia is understandable" they are very likely to assume A) that the person being referred to currently believes that homophobia is understandable and B) that he has actually written some such thing as "Homophobia is understandable." The Guardian article doesn't say that Scruton currently believes that homophobia is understandable, but that in the past he wrote that it was understandable - a not insignificant difference from what you placed in the article. It's a very bad idea to take someone's opinion in an article and present it as unqualified fact here, especially when the opinion is highly contentious and presenting it as fact conveys a deeply misleading impression of what Scruton has actually written. UserVOBO (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, Let me try to explain my earlier edit which you did not see as an improvement. I am not at all comfortable with the text saying that RS has argued "against the normalization of gay relationships" for two basic reasons: (1) I do not know what it means. Indeed it seems to me to be inherently ambiguous. (2) I am not convinced that this is indeed something that RS has said or written (at least not without later retracting it). By contrast, the Telegraph piece clearly argues against gay adoption, and that should be in.

When RS says that "although homosexulaity has been normalized, it is not normal" what is he saying? What does he mean by normalization, and is he here arguing against "normalization" or -- however reluctantly or grudgingly -- accepting it as a given. I suspect that the distinction he is making here betwen "normalization" and "normal" may go something along the following lines. "Normalization" seems to refer to the way in which society relates to homosexuals and homosexual conduct -- e.g., Western societies no longer prosecute people for consenting acts between adults in private, and a great many people now view with toleration/acceptance same sex couples living together. Scruton may not be wild about the trend but he does not seem to me to say "We must go back to arresting gays" or stop being civil to folks who live together. When he talks about "normal" I think he is talking about a deeper sense that, in his view, many have that "heterosexuality," the traditional family of different-sex partners, the father and mother seeking to raise children together, etc., etc. is somehow still "the norm" from which other arrangements diverge -- in this sense, I think, "normal" relates to our deepest thoughts and "normalization" to our behaviors.

Anyway, whether or not one accepts this attempt to make sense of what RS says and writes, I would return to my first point that the statement about him opposing normalization is neither clear in its meaning nor clearly a statement of RS's position, and as such I propose that we revert it. Nandt1 (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Nandt1, there are multiple problems with the changes you've made to this material. Replacing "Scruton states" with "Scruton comments on his own earlier essay about homosexuality" is adding your personal commentary and analysis to the article - we have multiple policies against that, including WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY, not to speak of WP:BLP. Your efforts at trying to justify this have been unconvincing, and the material itself is misleading - Scruton has never written an essay specifically about homosexuality, to my knowledge. "Sexual morality and the liberal consensus" does discuss homosexuality among other topics, but it's not about homosexuality per se. Another way in which your commentary is misleading is that it could imply that Scruton has repudiated his 2007 comments in the Telegraph - there is no indication that he has done that. UserVOBO (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't accept the arguments you've used for changing the description of Scruton's 2007 Telegraph piece - the version prior to your changes looks more accurate. However, if there is going to be ongoing disagreement over how to present Scruton's 2007 Telegraph article, the best solution may be to not include it at all. It's partly because primary source material of this kind can be subjected to different interpretations that articles about living people are meant to be based on secondary sources, not primary sources. UserVOBO (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sexual Desire

SlimVirgin's recent editing of the "Views on sexual desire" section has removed this text: "In his view, Scruton argued that sexual desire directed toward the opposite gender elicits its complement and that homosexuality is a perversion, because it does not involve the fundamental experience of otherness across gender. Dollimore criticises Scruton's sexual philosophy for being 'timid, conservative, and deeply ignorant.'" There's nothing wrong I think with removing the last part of that - the comments about Scruton's sexual philosophy being "timid" and so forth are quite dispensable, and may even be a BLP violation, despite the fact that they are sourced. The first part however seems helpful and informative, and I can't think of a valid reason for removing it. Perhaps the comments about Scruton from Martha Nussbaum are meant to serve as a substitute, but they don't at all convey the same information (plus it also looks as though they're sourced to a blog - http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogrammer/ - it quotes Nussbaum in the New Republic, but we should be using the original TNR article, not the quote from the blog). I think we should be explaining fully our reasons for changing this section, rather than plunging into more possibly contentious editing. UserVOBO (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm not at all sure that replacing "Mark Dooley praises Sexual Desire as 'magisterial', writing that Scruton's objective is to show that sexual desire fundamentally enriches our experience of the sacred" with "Mark Dooley praises Sexual Desire as "magisterial", writing that Scruton's objective is to show that sexual desire trades in 'the currency of the sacred'" is an improvement. UserVOBO (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find where Scruton said that exactly, which is why I removed it. Do you have the exact text? I also think it's preferable to use secondary sources where there are issues of interpretation.
The original Nussbaum interview is a radio interview, I believe, and therefore it's helpful to link to the transcript rather than the original. We can do both if you prefer.
With Dooley, I quoted what he said, rather than trying to interpret it, because I don't know what it means. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Since you haven't commented on your reason for removing the first part of the material sourced to Dollimore, I've restored it. I had thought that I'd offered a reasonable summary of what Dooley wrote (it's there on page 53 of his book Roger Scruton: The Philosopher on Dover Beach), and can be looked up on Amazon.com for example, but if it was incomprehensible, I guess I didn't. I think the direct quote from Dooley is actually even less comprehensible. Quoting more material to explain what "fundamentally enriching our experience of the sacred" means may be the solution here.
Note that the statement "In several publications, including in an essay, "Sexual morality and the liberal consensus" (1989), Scruton writes that certain people of any generation are attracted to their own sex" is not supported by the source, and is incorrect - Scruton states this, so far as I know, only in "Sexual morality and the liberal consensus." It should be modified or removed. UserVOBO (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I did give my reason for removing the perversion issue, which is that I can't find where Scruton said it exactly. Do you have the exact text? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I misunderstood you - it wasn't clear what your remarks were referring to. Dollimore writes as follows on pages 260-261:
"Desire directed across sexual difference, towards the other gender, elicits not its simulacrum (as in homosexuality) but its complement: 'Male desire evokes the loyalty which neutralises its vagrant impulses; female desire evokes the conquering urge which overcomes its hesitations.' (p. 309) Homosexuality is included as a perversion because it is denied this 'fundamental experience' of otherness-across-gender." UserVOBO (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to ask SlimVirgin to explain the reasons for the changes she made here. It's not clear to me why they're necessarily an improvement. UserVOBO (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please be more specific so I can address your points. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Very well.
Why did you replace this text ('The philosopher Martha Nussbaum calls this argument a "risky exploration of strange terrain." In sticking to the familiar, whether in terms of religion, class, education, or same-sex relationships, we lose that union with the other, but Nussbaum writes that Scruton does not apply his principle of otherness equally—for example, to sexual relationships between adults and children—and that the concept of similarity is too slippery to have content.') with this ('The philosopher Martha Nussbaum argues that that the concept of similarity is too slippery to have content, and that Scruton does not apply his principle of otherness equally; for example, he does not apply it to sexual relationships between adults and children.') The previous text seems clearer and contains some information that the latter removes.
Also, why remove Dooley's comment that Sexual Desire is "magisterial"? UserVOBO (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what it means, or who Dooley is, and we don't say. I don't think there's any point in turning the article into a quote farm of unidentified people, or even identified ones, saying "I loved it! or "I hated it!". We should stick to their arguments. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Those aren't very good reasons for changing the article. "Magisterial" is a common English word. According to Wiktionary, its main meaning is "Of or pertaining to a master or magistrate, or one in authority." In this context, it's fairly clearly Dooley's way of saying that Scruton knows what he is doing. Not knowing who Dooley is again doesn't seem like a reason to remove that comment. I don't think it's Wikipedia's business to say what someone's "arguments" about Scruton and his work are; here, we'd be interested simply in their conclusions - not quite the same thing. Positive or negative evaluations of Scruton's work are obviously part of people's conclusions about it. That Martha Nussbaum credits Scruton with providing "the most interesting philosophical attempt as yet to work through the moral issues involved in our treatment of persons as sex partners" was an extremely relevant fact and should not have been removed. UserVOBO (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
VOBO you're discussing this in various places, so that we now have a signal-to-noise problem. Please choose one discussion forum, and let me know when you've decided. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
If you wish to continue discussion here, then let us do so. I'm quite happy to suspend discussion at the BLP noticeboard. I think the questions I've asked are reasonable, and deserve answers. I think your changes to the Views on Sexual Desire section have been on the whole unfortunate, but I am not rushing to revert them or to restore the previous version. It's better to proceed in a gradual and carefully considered way where controversial subject matter is involved. UserVOBO (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, so many places to comment and so many choices as to how far to indent! For those who like to be fully informed as to Scruton's developing philosophical thought, he has recently (5 September 2010) blogged that "I have quite complex views about homosexuality, that I do not regard it as a perversion" and (I cannot refrain from continuing) "I make a radical distinction between the male and the female versions, the first tending towards sexual pleasure, the second towards emotional involvement". Further wisdom is included.[3] Thincat (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for this, Thincat. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP Noticeboard, Roger Scruton (once again)

Since there seems to be an ongoing dispute here over how to present Scruton's views on homosexuality, I have made another report at the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard. It seems clear to me that we should simply be reporting the facts and not offering our own speculations and opinions about Scruton's views, but if there is no agreement about something that basic here, then hopefully input from the noticeboard can help create consensus about this. UserVOBO (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Copied from BLP noticeboard

So we don't repeat the discussion here, I'm copying it from the noticeboard below, because it only involved people who were posting here anyway. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Roger Scruton article was the subject of a report here just recently. That one dealt with Scruton's dealings with the tobacco industry. This one is about Scruton's comments about homosexuality. UserNandt1 has insisted on adding his own unsourced commentary on Scruton's views about homosexuality. I've tried to explain on the talk page that Wikipedia has policies against doing that sort of thing, and that we need to simply report things without adding our own commentary, but Nandt1 has persisted in adding his own interpretation and analysis, for example here. That edit makes it look as though Scruton has written an essay specifically about homosexuality - something he hasn't, to my knowledge, ever done. Scruton has written an essay ("Sexual morality and the liberal consensus") that deals essentially with liberal views on sexual morality; it argues that homosexual sex should be illegal, but homosexuality is only one of the subjects it mentions, so it's not really "about homosexuality". Nandt1's intention seems to be to make it look as though Scruton was repudiating that essay, but while he could have been doing that, it isn't at all clear that he was, since he didn't mention it by name in the interview Nandt1 added his commentary to. Nandt1's edit could inadvertently make it look as though Scruton was repudiating comments he made about homosexuality in the Daily Telegraph in 2007, but there's no sign that he has done that either.

The ongoing disputes at the article make it essential that more editors take an interest in it.

I should note that the administrator SlimVirgin has been involved with editing the article; she has actually argued in favor of including original research on the article's talk page. See her talk post here. SlimVirgin seems to feel that we must include original research or the article will somehow be "misleading": "...if we don't add the context, it sounds as though he's repudiating his more recent views too (e.g. the 2007 Telegraph views), which I think he is not. That's the problem: what we write will either be misleading or OR." I am very uncomfortable with that attitude, and would like others to comment on whether it is appropriate. UserVOBO (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

See also this edit by SlimVirgin, which seems extremely dubious in BLP terms. UserVOBO (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misdescribing the situation, VOBO. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
In what sense? A more specific comment would be more helpful here. We need to keep the article free from original research (such as our own speculation on/commentary on Scruton's statements about homosexuality) and BLP violations (such as inflammatory statements that he holds the view that "homophobia is understandable" - which was partly based on the source you used but went beyond what it actually said). That's why an edit like this, made by you, is problematic. Scruton was probably thinking of "Sexual morality and the liberal consensus" in his Guardian interview, but you do not know that for a fact, and shouldn't have asserted that that was what he was doing. UserVOBO (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
He has written one famous essay on sexuality, dated 1989. It became famous because in it he makes arguments about homosexuality that many people would find very objectionable, including that children should have feelings of revulsion instilled in them about it.
In a 2010 Guardian interview, he withdraws this: "I took the view that feeling repelled by something might have a justification ... And in that essay I experimented with the view that maybe something similar can be said about homosexuality. And I don't now agree with that ... (my bold)."
To argue that it's OR to make clear he was talking about his 1989 essay is to apply the NOR policy without commonsense. There is an NOR noticeboard you could ask instead of here, by the way. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
If making it clear that Scruton was referring to "Sexual morality and the liberal consensus" was your objective, then your edits at the Scruton article haven't reached it. At the moment the article says, "In a Guardian interview in June 2010 Scruton said of his earlier essay..." - since that immediately follows a description of his 2007 Telegraph comments, readers might mistakenly conclude that he was retracting them rather than what he said in "Sexual morality and the liberal consensus."
Replacing "his earlier essay" with "Sexual morality and the liberal consensus" would prevent that possible confusion, but it would make the statement even more obviously original research. I said on the talk page that I was prepared to leave some comment on his Guardian interview in the article, but that was in the spirit of compromise and out of a desire to avoid edit warring, not because I think it's the ideal solution. I'm concerned that we're not giving our readers the credit to assume that they can understand Scruton's comments without our unsourced attempt to explain them.
WP:NOR and WP:BLP issues are not separate from each other. If a BLP contains original research, then that is at least potentially a BLP problem. UserVOBO (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
It was you who objected to us saying the 1989 essay! That's why I changed it. I really don't know what you want here. The NOR policy is not supposed to be applied so rigidly that we daren't draw a single conclusion no matter how unavoidable. And it really is better to have these discussions on the talk page—starting a forest fire of posts in various places is time-consuming to respond to. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Replacing a clear piece of OR with a vague and possibly misleading piece of OR isn't really progress. What do I want? I'd ideally like to see the original research removed altogether. UserVOBO (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I must second SlimVirgin on this controversy. Scruton himself says directly that "in that essay" he experimented with arguments which he no longer stands behind. Various drafts of the lead-in to his quote, offered by SlimVirgin and myself and repeatedly challenged by UserVOBO, have noted that, in the quote in question, (1) he is referring back to an essay of his own. In some versions of the lead-in text (though not the current draft), we have also noted that (2) he has explicitly disavowed earlier views. I.e., our contantly rebuffed attempts to come up with an acceptable lead-in comprise variations on parapaphrases of the man's own words. (The only instances in which we went beyond his own words were one or two versions which explicitly identified the essay he was repudiating -- I have argued this is pretty self-evident, but I would accept it is not spelled out by him in so many words -- and that detail has been droped the current draft). But really, to try make this into a big story about "Original Research" verges on being baffling. Nandt1 (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
VOBO, the essence of OR is twofold: it occurs (a) when something is entirely made up by a Wikipedian; and (b) when a Wikipedian goes beyond the sources in such a way that the sources, if asked, would say, "But that's not what I meant!" Neither of these things applies to this situation. We have to be allowed to join up sentences and explain context; otherwise our articles would just be lists of quotes. The key is to do it in a way that the sources would agree was true to their utterances, and that is clearly the case here. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
What WP:NOR says is, 'The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.' How you get from that to your understanding of what counts as original research is beyond me, frankly. The source, Scruton's recent Guardian interview, doesn't advance the position that the "essay" he vaguely refers to is "Sexual morality and the liberal consensus." Therefore, it's OR to say he was referring to it. I agree that it's 99% or more likely that Scruton was referring to that essay, but we still can't be totally sure of that and (in my view) we shouldn't be saying that he was. I'm aware that I'm taking a minority position on this, and I do not intend to try to impose my views on other editors; I nevertheless think it's important to state here that the policy is being bent or effectively disregarded. UserVOBO (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I helped to write and maintain that policy, so I know what it says, and I know it should never be stretched to the point you're trying to take it, which would prevent us from joining up sentences and thoughts. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I see, an argument from authority. That settles that, then. But seriously, inasmuch as I'm not interested in simply reverting your edits and going back to earlier versions of the article, there's not really a point to continuing this discussion. Maybe I shall make changes to the article in future; we can discuss then if need be. UserVOBO (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Tobacco Case

Another attempt has recently been made to remove apparently "inconvenient" material from this article: in this case by a user's wholesale deletion of the section dealing with the controversy over Dr. Scruton's dealings with the tobacco industry. The user says this was deleted in line with policy on living persons, but this controversy has been discussed in this article for something like six years, and the policy does not mandate avoiding controversial topics, but rather special care to avoid unbalanced/unsourced discussion of such topics. If any users consider the section as it stood unbalanced or inadequately sourced, they should address these specific points, but Wikipedia does not progress by just suppressing controversy. "A balanced approach...." indeed, as acknowledged by user Jprw above! Nandt1 (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You're correct to point out that properly sourced discussions of criticisms or controversy are acceptable under the BLP policy. In this case, however, I'm concerned that the sources used did not fully back up the statements that appeared in the article. I have reworked that material, and cut it back to something that can be supported by the sources. UserVOBO (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In an overall consideration of Scruton's career this "controversy" barely merits a mention. It is also mildly pejorative and contentious—hence the BLP concerns. But the most glaring problem here is editors' wishing to devote a whole section to it, in an article that, for example, does not even have a separate section on Scruton's undercover work in the former Czechoslovakia. Hence an egregious issue with respect to balance and weight arises, and it is chiefly because of this that I have deleted the section again. Jprw (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP states that, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." It's clear that what "contentious" means here is basically "unsourced." The material in question is not unsourced and as such it is not contentious in the sense BLP is concerned with - so that part of your reason for removing it is quite simply wrong. That the tobacco issue has been covered by a reliable source like The Guardian indicates that it may deserve a mention - in accord with due weight, we should be covering matters dealt with in reliable sources. Just asserting that the issue doesn't deserve a mention is not a very helpful approach.
On the other hand, you may well be right that the issue is not important enough to deserve a section unto itself, so I'm content to leave it out for the time being, until consensus can be reached about how best to include the material in the article. UserVOBO (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The article reads like an hysterical scurrilous attack piece. Some excerpts: "The controversial conservative academic"; "Denounced by the left as a reactionary and apologist for the political right"; "Prof Scruton has denounced single mothers, homosexuals, socialists, feminists, popular culture while defending Enoch Powell and fox hunting"; "Clive Bates, director of the ASH anti-smoking campaign, said last night: "Scruton likes to pass himself off as the leading intellectual of the right, but it seems he's just a grimy hack for the tobacco industry""; "that the deal with the tobacco industry made the academic neither intellectual nor independent". Unpleasant, potentially libellous stuff. But the thing that must cause most concern from a WP:BLP standpoint is that the source which the article hinges on is a leaked e-mail which Scruton himself objects to: ""The whole thing is quite immoral - the stealing of private correspondence and making it public," protested Prof Scruton. So, we have editors wishing to include a reference which is full of wholly pejorative and potentially libellous language and which hinges on a stolen item from the subject's personal correspondence. I think that we should we giving it a wide berth to say the least, and focusing on more appropriate ways of improving the article. Jprw (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

None of the excerpts are in the section that you removed, thus their potentially being libellous is not the immediate issue. I'm not exactly sure why you object to some of them - presumably everyone, including Scruton himself, would agree that he is a "conservative academic" and that he has been "denounced by the left." The crucial thing here is that The Guardian does qualify as a reliable source - the fact that this particular Guardian article happens to refer to a leaked e-mail does not automatically disqualify it from being used as a source as far as I know. If it did, Wikipedia could hardly have an article like Climatic Research Unit email controversy, where the hacking and leaking of e-mails was precisely the issue. UserVOBO (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That article is completely different, being an account of the incident. Here, the hack itself—a stolen item from Scruton's private correspondence—is being used as the only source in an attack piece by The Guardian. There is a sensationalist, tabloid-like tone throughout the article. Even the headline—"Scruton in media plot to push the sale of cigarettes" is ridiculous, almost like something out of The Day Today Jprw (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not, I'm afraid the tobacco controversy is and can be expected to remain a significant aspect of the public persona for which Dr. Scruton is known . The Guardian is a reputable source and in any case Dr. Scruton has not denied the authenticity of the correspondence at issue. We as contributors have the responsibility to seek a balanced account, but it is surely not our place to try to censor the record as would be done by avoiding all mention. This said, in an attempt to reach out in a spirit of compromise to those who believe the incident has been given undue prominence hitherto, I have tried in my most recent edit the tack of merging it into a section that includes other controversies (such as fox-hunting). Nandt1 (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC) N.B. In the same spirit I have also created a new section -- whose absence was regretted above -- highlighting Dr. Scruton's support for dissidents in Eastern Europe. Nandt1 (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"The tobacco controversy is and can be expected to remain a significant aspect of the public persona for which Dr. Scruton is known"—I still maintain that it barely merits a mention in a consideration of his overall career (he tried getting a monthly pay rise from a company he was working for as a consultant—so what?) and the fact that an unscrupulous article like this, based on a stolen piece of the subject's private correspondence, is being given so much attention by editors, seems to suggest that certain editors are more intersted in somehow expressing their disdain towards the subject than improving the article along accepted Wikipedia guidelines. Compare this article [4] in The Guardian on Scruton's life and work—sober, well written, well-researched, beautifully sourced—yet not referenced once in the article. A sense of balance has been lost and this thinly veiled antipathy is most inappropriate. Jprw (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP is a strict policy. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are also strict policies. Please review them. Kindly don't speculate about your fellow editors' motives, and please don't refer to them as "certain editors" either - if you mean myself and Nandt1, then say so, and address us by our names. For the record, I respect Roger Scruton as an independent thinker and consider some of his stances very brave. I'm a man of the Right myself, something I haven't made a secret of. In the end, however, that's neither here nor there. Criticism sourced to reliable sources is perfectly fine and within the limits of BLP. It does a disservice to readers to remove it, and your incivility runs the risk of inflaming the situation. UserVOBO (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see that it is going to be very difficult to get through to you the basic thrust of my argument—that the tobacco issue is an aside in Scruton's life and career blown out of all proportion that is being used to smear him, initially by the authors of what is a scurrilous piece of journalism in The Guardian, and now being compounded by you (UserVOBO) and Nandt1 having an obsession to see it quoted at length in Scruton's article, despite the highly problematic nature of the material and the complete imbalance it creates. I maintain that as Wikipedia editors we should be concentrating on how to include more salient, relevant and less contentious material—again, this link is an excellent example. This has got nothing to do with Right or Left, but the question of how you are resorting to shoddy standards of Wikipedia editing when better and more honourable alternatives are open to you. Jprw (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Like UserVOBO, I cannot accept the terms in which we are being categorized here. I have a long record of conscientious editing for Wikipedia, and I want to make it very clear indeed that ad hominem terms like "shoddy" and (by implication) "dishonorable" are totally out of order in a discussion of this kind. Let me add that, like UserVOBO, I respect Dr. Scruton's professional work and his stands on behalf of the East European dissidents. But we have a duty as contributors to an encyclopedia to tell the "whole truth" not only "nil nisi bonum." The repeated suggestion that we wish to deal with the tobacco affair "at length" and thereby create imbalance was dealt with in our most recent edits by shortening the text and merging it into a larger section. The references to the "highly problematic nature of the material" continue to miss the point that Dr. Scruton in no way denies the authenticity of the leaked email and has provided his own explanation (which was reflected in our proposed text). I am pleased to see that the matter has -- reportedly -- been referred to Wikipedia editors. Nandt1 (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have only just noticed User:Jprw's description of our work as "scurillous guttersniping". Isn't there something in Wikipedia's policies about showing respect and assuming good faith? Nandt1 (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I note that you are both very quick (and without the slightest hesitation and the minimum justification) to jump behind WP: CIVIL and WP: NPA , and at the same time are more than willing to include a reference that is directly pejorative of the subject, based on a source which was stolen from the subject's personal correspondence—a fact that the subject himself has expressed dismay about. If only you were to apply the same high standards to others as you apply to yourselves. And the issue of imbalance was NOT solved by creating a new section. All that happened was that you moved inappropriate material (his views on fox hunting and battery farms) to a new "controversies" section, whose only content which was indeed controversial was the problematic Guardian ref, which was again referred to in detail and at length. I have to say that I see this as failing to be indicative of having "a long record of conscientious editing for Wikipedia". I will state the obvious again: this is a shoddy, disdainful way to edit a Wikipedia article. If you really want to improve it along acceptable Wikipedia guidelines, why not try and include some material from this link—this is now the third time I have pointed out this excellent resource. Jprw (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Our ideas of what constitutes "civil" discourse in these pages (and what would constitute justification for noting its absence) clearly differ. At this stage further discussion seems pointless and I am happy to leave the matter to the editors. Nandt1 (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

What a shame that you are unwilling to address the actual points that I make, and choose instead to hide behind a completely non-justified invoking of WP:CIVIL. Yes, you're right—progress looks impossible. Jprw (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A comment such as, "certain editors are more intersted in somehow expressing their disdain towards the subject than improving the article along accepted Wikipedia guidelines" violates WP:AGF in a way that borders on a personal attack. It really doesn't fall within accepted terms of civility, and it shows a failure to apreciate WP:ETIQUETTE too. So far, this isn't a crucial matter, but if you continue making unfortunate comments of that nature, then it may become a larger problem. UserVOBO (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP Noticeboard, Roger Scruton

"Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard") from here. This I have now done, please see here. I would also like to draw to editors' attention the following: "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject", also from here. Jprw (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Administrator has spoken and I have followed up on the guidance provided on the tobacco controversy. Nandt1 (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it again until a second administrator voices an opinion. Jprw (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Four editors (Nandt1, Rd232, RolandR, and myself) have now told you that the JTI material is acceptable, and your position appears to be finding no support. I think the issue is therefore now basically resolved. UserVOBO (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

On the WP:BLP Noticeboard I have conceded that owing to the number of addtional sources adduced by RolandR this issue may indeed merit a mention, but I have requested there that we do not use the Guardian article to source the incident, since it could be construed as being an attack piece. I hope that's a compromise and I look forward to trying to improve the article with you and others in the future. Jprw (talk) 05:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this is a crucial issue. We aren't trying to summarize the "attack" aspects of The Guardian article here - only its basic, factual material. Using it as a source isn't an endorsement of everything it says, and shouldn't be seen that way. Since Scruton replied specifically to that article, I'd say there's little choice but to refer to it. UserVOBO (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. I see that this issue is taking up a considerable amount of space again -- I suspect that it can be shorn/summarised in some way, otherwise I believe that WP: WEIGHT rears its head again. Jprw (talk) 10:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Not just perhaps, but definitely - we do want to tell Scruton's side of the story here, in accord with BLP and basic fairness, and there is no way of doing this without referring to the Guardian article. UserVOBO (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well from the Guardian article it is clear that he was dismayed that an item from his personal correspondence was stolen and made public. No doubt he would be similarly dismayed to see the amount of coverage the episode is being given in his Wikipedia article. I am surprised and saddened that not one other editor has acknowledged in some way that this is a contentious and problematic reference and that we should at least be exercising caution. My intention now is to restore proper balance to the article by focusing on expanding the more salient aspects of his life and career. Hats off to SlimVirgin for providing a foundation to achieving this. Jprw (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Section headings

SlimVirgin's recent editing has obviously benefited this article significantly, however, I think some of the section headings could perhaps be further improved. "Work in philosophy" is not an ideal heading within a section called "Philosophical and political views", and "Views on sexual desire" is also open to question - some of the views described there relate more to actual sexual behaviour than they do to sexual desire itself. UserVOBO (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to tweak them around, VOBO. I wasn't sure myself what headers made most sense. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
It would be easier to decide what the section headings should be if the article had more content; the uncertainty here is a product of the article's coverage of Scruton's work being incomplete. I'd suggest simply "Views on sex" instead of "Views on sexual desire", but will leave it as is for now. UserVOBO (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Great work from SlimVirgin who has given editors an excellent foundation on which to take the article forward. Jprw (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Japan Tobacco International

I've pared down this description considerably so as to remove unnecessary detail and only cover the main points. I've also added some extra details related to Scruton's take on things. Hopefully it is more balanced now and appropriate in terms of how much space it was taking up in the article. Jprw (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As I've indicated in a later edit, my sense is that the proposed language departed in a couple of places too far from an objective NPOV use of words towards RS's own subjective perspective. It is fine for an advocate to speak of "stolen" emails -- emotional language! -- but I am not convinced it is appropriate for an encyclopedia without the use of quotation marks. I have, at the same time, tried to make it entirely clear that (a) this was a private communication, and (b) it was disclosed without his consent, which is an unemotional way of conveying the same facts. I also feel it would be a significant error of imbalance to omit the fact that RS himself admitted to an error of judgement in not "declaring an interest" on the WHO pamphlet. This is, after all, a key part of his own overall evaluation of what happened. Nandt1 (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the main thrust of what you are saying, but in terms of accuracy, we should be using the word "hacked" and not "leaked". The latter suggests that someone from Scruton's inner circle made the email available to the media, which is flatly not the case. What did happen is that a party broke into his computer and took the item without his permission, i.e., stole it, or in this context, "hacked". Jprw (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Do the sources say that's what happened? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm disturbed by the multiple reverts here recently. Jprw, please do more on the talk page to ensure that your edits get consensus before reverting. Also, in regard to your recent edit summary ("Please read my previous edit summary") - thanks, but I had read your previous edit summary. I disagree, however, with the reason you gave. UserVOBO (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As he's reverted this material five times in 22 hours, I've left a report at WP:AN/3RR. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Two points on this controversy:

(a) Are we certain that we know how exactly the email made it to The Guardian? Jprw aserts that it was hacked from RS's computer. Are there solid sources for this? It seems to me that, in theory, there are multiple possible routes: an individual working for Japan Tobacco might, for example, have decided to leak the message as a matter of conscience. So, if there are sources for this specific explanation, let's see them.

(b) Among the material that Jprw has repeatedly reverted is a sentence I have been trying to get into the record: RS himself conceded that, in retrospect, he had erred in not "declaring an interest" (in respect of the Japan Tobacco contract) when he wrote his pamphlet attacking the WHO's anti-smoking policies. I see this statement as providing part of a balanced account -- here, after all, is one of the key lessons the man himself has drawn about what happened. I do not see any good reason why it should be repeatedly eliminated from the record. Nandt1 (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to say that I think the version of the JTI material SlimVirgin appears to prefer is better than what is in the article at the moment. The compressed version excludes a number of details that seem important, including but not limited to the fact that Kevin Maguire was the reporter who broke the story - as I said in my edit summary, if he is notable enough for an article, we should be mentioning his name. It's bothering to see no one reply to this point, and for this material to be removed without explanation.
As for the issue of whether we should say that the email was hacked or leaked: that should be simple, because the source being used (the Maguire article) says leaked, not hacked. Opinions do not take precedence over what the source actually says. I couldn't find the article at the URL given in the article, but I did find it here. UserVOBO (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've written up some of these details again, because they're relevant to a full understanding of what happened, particularly the amount of money, the fact that it was not disclosed to the newspapers involved, and Scruton's response.

I'm concerned that, as things stand, with no mention of it in the lead (per LEAD); no subhead; and no mention of the key details, we're underestimating how much coverage this got, including internationally in The New York Times and Harper's Magazine. I'll add the material below unless there are objections, so let me know please:

In January 2002 Kevin Maguire and Julian Borger reported in The Guardian that Scruton had asked JTI for £5,500 ($7,800) a month to place pro-smoking articles in several newspapers and magazines. An October 2001 e-mail to a JTI executive was leaked to the journalists, and showed Scruton requesting an increase of £1,000 over his existing fee of £4,500 ($6,400) per month; it also discussed his aim of getting opinion pieces published every two months in several newspapers—including The Wall Street Journal, The Times, and The Daily Telegraph—on what the e-mail called "major topics of current concern" to the tobacco industry.[1] As a result of the article, The Financial Times, one of the newspapers mentioned in the e-mail, ended Scruton's contract with them as a weekly columnist on issues related to country life.[2] The Wall Street Journal, for whom Scruton had written regularly since 1996, also said it had suspended his contributions for having failed to disclose his relationship with JTI.[3]

In response, Scruton objected to The Guardian's use of a leaked email, which he said had been stolen, and said he had never concealed his connection with JTI, which had started three years earlier. He also told the newspaper the new proposal was never acted upon.[1] After the story appeared, he was criticized in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) for having failed to declare his relationship with JTI when he wrote a 65-page pamphlet, "WHO, What and Why" (2000), for the Institute of Economic Affairs, a British think tank, about the World Health Organization's (WHO) campaign against smoking— the pamphlet criticized the WHO for focusing on tobacco instead of vaccination campaigns and diseases.[4] He wrote an editorial along similar lines for the European edition of The Wall Street Journal, and his arguments were picked up by The Times and The Scotsman in what the BMJ said appeared to be a pro-tobacco campaign. According to The New York Times, Scruton did not tell the Institute for Economic Affairs that he was receiving a salary from JTI.[3]

Scruton told the BMJ that he wrote the pamphlet because of his long-standing concerns about legislative powers being transferred to transnational institutions, not with the aim of exonerating tobacco; he acknowledged that, with hindsight, he should have declared an interest.[5]

Notes

References

  1. ^ a b Maguire, Kevin and Borger, Julian. "Scruton in media plot to push the sale of cigarettes", The Guardian, January 24, 2002.
  2. ^ Timmins, Nicholas and Williams, Frances. "Writer Failed to Declare Tobacco Interest," Financial Times, 24 January 2002.
  3. ^ a b Stille, Alexander. "Advocating Tobacco, On the Payroll Of Tobacco", The New York Times, 23 March 2002.
  4. ^ Scruton, Roger. "WHO, What, and Why", Institute of Economic Affairs, May 2000.
  5. ^ Kmietowicz, Zosia and Ferriman, Annabel. "Pro-tobacco writer admits he should have declared an interest", British Medical Journal, 2 February 2002.

SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. UserVOBO (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The only word I think I would really suggest changing in this draft is "salary" which generally implies a full-time income. Maybe "regular payments" or "monthly fees" or something along these lines. Nandt1 (talk) 02:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the source says salary. I'll check again before adding anything. SlimVirgin talk|contribs
It did say salary, but I changed it to income. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Tobacco money again

Jprw is once again removing the tobacco details, [5] [6] despite the consensus to retain them. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

(copied from SV talk) Hi, could you please explain to me the need for that amount of detail in the Scruton article? Jprw (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
It has already been explained by several editors. It was widely reported by multiple reliable sources. The amount of money is clearly relevant; there is a significant difference between receiving the occasional ₤200 freelance fee, and the equivalent of a full-time salary. And the names of the newspapers are relevant because he was working for some of them, and they let him go.
By continuing to remove and discuss it, you're drawing more attention to it on public pages than the article alone does, and causing more sources to be added to the article to shore up the details, so if you think you're helping Scruton you're quite mistaken. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about "helping Scruton" but a simple copy editing matter. The text is repetitious and there is an excruciating level of detail.

Re: "The amount of money is clearly relevant; there is a significant difference between receiving the occasional ₤200 freelance fee, and the equivalent of a full-time salary".

In that case, why not write "increased salary"?

Also, where exactly is there a consensus that this level of detail is necessary? Jprw (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, this is the text that no other editors had a problem with until you began piling on the detail:

In 2002 The Guardian reported that Scruton had asked JTI for an increased fee to place pro-smoking articles in several newspapers and magazines. The report was based on a hacked email.[1] As a result of the article, The Financial Times ended Scruton's contract with them as a columnist.[2]

In response, Scruton objected to The Guardian's use of a "stolen" email, as well as acting as "judge and prosecutor" and said his connections with JTI had never been concealed and that the new proposal was never acted upon.[3] After the story appeared, Scruton was criticised in the British Medical Journal for having failed to declare his relationship with JTI when he wrote a pamphlet in 2000—"WHO, What and Why"—for the Institute of Economic Affairs about the World Health Organization's (WHO) campaign against smoking.[2]

The current level of detail smacks of someone having a vendetta against Scruton. Jprw (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kevin Maguire, Julian Borger (January 24, 2002). "Scruton in media plot to push the sale of cigarettes". The Guardian. Retrieved 5 September 2010.
  2. ^ a b "Pro-tobacco writer admits he should have declared an interest". British Medical Journal. 2 February 2002. Retrieved 5 September 2010.
  3. ^ "A puff for the Scrutons". The Guardian. January 28, 2002. Retrieved 5 September 2010.
Then by all means seek consensus to add your version, but please don't continue to remove what's there over objections. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, okay, thanks. Actually I expect the simpler version to be rejected by a majority of editors, but at the same time I feel that it is important that my concerns are voiced. Jprw (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed yet again

This edit by Slim Virgin illustrates perfectly why trying to restore an appropriate level of balance to this article is going to be an uphill task. Jprw (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Jprw, you've removed the details yet again, which is disruptive. [7] You acknowledge above that you don't expect to gain consensus, so why do you keep doing it? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
If you look closely you will see that I am trying to remove repetitious fluff. Not only is the JTI Tobacco description imbalancing the article, it is very poorly written. But I can't even copy edit it, it seems. The St Andrews thing looks very Google news-like to me.

Also, for the record, the edit of yours I draw attention to above shows absolutely clearly where your priorities lie when it comes to Scruton -- diminishing what he is actually known for, and choosing to concentrate instead on describing in excruciating detail minor negative side issues from his career. I don't expect to make any progress on this discussion page as in the past I have been on my own up against a cabal. This is just for the record. Jprw (talk) 09:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You are causing this disruption "just for the record"? You seem to be admitting to a WP:POINT. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Making a note here of the number of times Jprw has removed the tobacco section, or removed the key details from it, since August 2010. He has been blocked twice because of it, once for 3RR and once for block evasion:

Aug 28, Sept 4, Sept 5, Sept 5, Sept 8, Sept 9, Sept 9, Sept 9, Sept 9, Sept 9, 72-block for 3RR, Sept 10, added three POV tags as 95.27.94.16, Sept 11, 5-day block for block evasion, Oct 12, Oct 12, Dec 4, Dec 4.

BLP noticeboard discussion here from September 5, where the material was deemed appropriate. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You are a deeply mendacious and disingenuous individual. The extent to which you twist things, and get away with it, is breathtaking. Jprw (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion of me was exactly the opposite when I started editing this article:

My intention now is to restore proper balance to the article by focusing on expanding the more salient aspects of his life and career. Hats off to SlimVirgin for providing a foundation to achieving this. Jprw (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2010

Great work from SlimVirgin who has given editors an excellent foundation on which to take the article forward. Jprw (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Then as soon as I did something you disagreed with, I was evil. Please stop all the personal comments and the disruption. If you want to build up his philosophy, do it. That would be a good thing. But it would require that you read his work, and understand it, and write it up well, and source it properly. I realize that it's a lot easier to remove what other people add, but the only thing that will lead to a good article is research. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources for the tobacco issue

In the hope of pre-empting further disruption on this point, I'm listing below the sources for the tobacco section. Jprw claims this is UNDUE. In fact, we're treating it very conservatively, arguably too much so, given the coverage, and particularly given that reference to it continues to appear in reliable sources.

The sources are high quality and the coverage was international, including in The Guardian, Financial Times, The New York Times, the British Medical Journal, and a book published by Harvard University Press.

There is no reference to it in the lead, though LEAD says we should include notable controversy, and it appears that more sources may have written about him over this than over any other single issue. His consultancy fee, which began in 1999, constitutes what most people would regard as a full-time annual salary in the UK—around ₤50,000 (currently around $78,000)—so it was not a minor issue. It is not known whether the relationship continues, though Scruton's website indicates that it continued in some form until 2006. We have left out much of the detail of his advocacy for the tobacco company in question, Japan Tobacco International. And we don't have a section header that refers to the controversy.

The sources are, in chronological order:

SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for article to be reviewed for its neutrality

I see that the page has apparently been nominated to be reviewed for its neutrality. The tag says that the reason for the nomination is discussed on this page, but I could not find any such justification actually provided here.

The nomination was made in the name of a user who had no record of editing on Wikipedia until yesterday. Well, fancy that: what a surprise!

Some of us have been working pretty hard here to try to get an appropriately accurate and balanced article. Hope the review is a suitably thorough and objective one!Nandt1 (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The POV templates are silly and should be removed. I don't believe there are major problems with the sections that have been tagged that way, though they may require some relatively minor adjustment. Even if they had major problems, it is excessive and even borderline disruptive to add so many templates, especially as the IP that added them is making no effort to discuss things on the talk page, and could well be engaged in block evasion. UserVOBO (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As implied below, there does seem to be reason to believe that they were placed by a sockpuppet. Nandt1 (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet: a Question

A hypothetical question. Would it be legitimate if a sockpuppet for a user who is currently suspended from editing were to request a neutrality review for a page which that user has recently been very active in editing, albeit attracting zero support from other users? 173.79.240.160 (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe the answer to that question is "no." UserVOBO (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was obviously misguided of me to post here when blocked and I admitted as much to the person who blocked me. It was a case of feeling exasperated at the length of the original block -- 3 days -- despite having an excellent record on WP. I also want to point out that SV escaped scot free, which I find puzzling, since the material she added was so imbalancing the article and creating a problem with WP: WEIGHT. But she was allowed to make multiple reverts, on each occasion reinstating the said material, and not get blocked or incriminated in edit warring. Can anyone explain to me why? (the person who blocked me failed to reply to an email I sent him). Jprw (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You reverted five times against more than one editor. You were warned that you may have violated 3RR, and you continued to revert, twice I believe after that. That's why you were reported for the violation, because it seemed that you weren't going to stop reverting otherwise. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question. Why did you get off scot free? Jprw (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Jprw, I'd suggest refraining from making comments like the above, per WP:CIVIL. This isn't a productive thread, and it would be best not to continue it. UserVOBO (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so no-one can shed any light on this matter, including the admin who blocked me. Jprw (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Referencing

I suggest that we use the {cite news} template (from here) throughout the article. If there are no objections I'll make the required changes over the weekend. Jprw (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I object to that. There's no need to add citation templates to articles that already have properly formatted references. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

But is the {cite news} template mentioned above not the official WP: template for citing news sources? Jprw (talk) 05:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation templates are just one option, and because they can be contentious they shouldn't be added over objections to references that are already properly formatted: see WP:CITE. More importantly, there's simply no need. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article seems to have veered towards being non-neutral. The following are of particular concern:

  • The ridiculous amount of detail that the Japan Tobacco episode is given;
  • Removal of references to Scruton's response—and defence—to the episode in The Guardian;
  • Removal of a positive review (of Dooley's comment that Sexual Desire is "magisterial") despite this having being discussed on this talk page;
  • The extent of the coverage given to his views on homosexuality.

Any disinterested reader coming across the article could well be forgiven for thinking that Scruton is some kind of dodgy businessman with strong homophobic tendencies—clearly a gross misrepresentation of his life and career. I am therefore putting the neutrality banner up until these issues are addressed. Jprw (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the gay coverage; by all means extend it if you want to. Also, if you want to restore "magisterial," I have no objection, though it sounds a little odd, but I don't care one way or the other. I would object to any attempt to dilute the tobacco issue, because it had widespread coverage and very particular consequences for him. I don't know which part of his response was removed; I recall you removing his response (that he ought to have declared the interest), but no-one else. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No—reduce, not extend, obviously, so that it is not so disproportionate. Jprw (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to reduce anything. It's not a long article, and it's an issue people are interested in. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the coverage of Scruton's views on homosexuality, I don't see that there is a major problem here. Most at least of the material on this subject clearly meets due weight, and it could even be extended (eg, by adding some of his comments from his recent blog post); Scruton is well known for taking controversial positions on homosexuality and the article needs to reflect that. UserVOBO (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Is he really "well known for taking controversial positions on homosexuality"? I am well acquainted with his work, having read about a dozen of his books, and have never come across a reference to homosexuality. It may be the first thing he's asked about by Guardian interviewers but that's a reflection on them not him. It's not an issue he actively cares about and it a constitutes an extremely minor part of his work - to suggest otherwise is in my opinion misleading, giving a false impression of his concerns. 82.42.239.226 (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, he is. If you're interested in Scruton, then you will wish to read his Sexual Desire, a book that contains numerous references to homosexuality, including a lengthy section of chapter 10 (on "perversion"), and his The Philosopher on Dover Beach, the 25th chapter of which reprints "Sexual morality and the liberal consensus", an essay which deals with homosexuality among other subjects. See also the latest edition of Scruton's A Dictionary of Political Thought, and his contribution to Daniel Cohn-Sherbok and Michael Leahy's anthology The Liberation Debate. Scruton has commented on homosexuality recently on his blog - it's not mentioned in the article, but probably should be. UserVOBO (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that it would make excellent sense for contributors who are well-qualified to do so to expand the discussion of Scruton's professional contributions to analytical philosophy: I personally lack the necessary qualifications, including the detailed knowledge of his writings in that area. This would help get us a better balanced article. But like several others who have contributed to the article, I do not accept that the road to balance lies in suppressing a balanced discussion of the controversies -- the different angles on the homosexuality and tobacco issues need to be properly presented. Included in this is making sure that Scruton's own reflections on the tobacco business are included ("declaring an interest") -- I have myself had to restore this discussion several times after it was cut.Nandt1 (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree - and the fact that other parts of the article need major work is one of the reasons why it isn't worth quibbling over the exact details of the views of sexual desire section. UserVOBO (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is there a ridiculous paragraph in this entry (the one starting with 'In an essay') based upon one person who quoted one line in one article which was written 20 years ago? This is now beyond absurd and clearly it is the ambition of several contributors to brand Mr Scruton as part of the 'homophobic' mob at all costs. The phrase 'He argues that, because gays have no children...' for instance is clearly puerile and should have no place in a serious encyclopaedic entry. 129.234.155.40 (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Like many of the contributers to this entry I have read most of his books, and note that there are several philosophical issues (and philosophical influences) to which he constantly returns. His views on homosexuality are little more than a footnote. But you have to be familiar with his writing to know that, and it is evident that the contributers who give them such prominence have little knowledge, understanding, or interest, in any of his central themes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.64.93 (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

By all means expand the rest of the article, 85. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.90.67 (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not? You're complaining that it doesn't say enough about his philosophy, or place his ideas in context. The solution is to supply that context, and if you've read most of his books you're well-placed to do it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You already know the answer to that question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.6.245 (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Slim Virgin" should look at her "editing" record on this article if she wants to understand why nobody is going to waste their time writing a decent entry.

Philosophical & Political Views

There is far too little on his philosophical and political views, and far too much on the topic of his remarks about homosexuality, and the controversy over his sponsorship by a Tobacco company. Although I can see why his critics on the Left would want to focus on these matters, and I think that the content of these entries is fair and so they should not be removed, somebody ought to balance the entry out by greatly expanding the section detailing his philosophical views. At the moment it is like an article about Andrew Lloyd Webber that focuses almost entirely on his support for the Conservative Party, and barely mentions his contributions to music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.8.64 (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the problem that you draw attention to has already been identified on this talk page. The imbalance is glaring, and unfortunate: more attention is given to the minor aspects of his career than those aspects which qualify him to have a Wikipedia article in the first place. Jprw (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to expand the philosophy and political views section. I have none of his books on aesthetics, nor his book on Spinoza, or his Short History of Modern Philosophy. I have only some of his political books, and only a few books of his collected articles, but I am familiar with (and have on my bookshelf) the following of his books 

   * Kant (1983)
   * Modern Philosophy (1994)
   * An Intelligent Person's Guide To Philosophy (1996) Republished in 2005 as Philosophy: Principles and Problems
   * An Intelligent Person's Guide to Modern Culture (1998)
   * The West and the Rest: Globalisation and the Terrorist Threat (2002)
   * Gentle Regrets: Thoughts from a Life (2005)
   * Animal Rights and Wrongs (2006)
   * A Political Philosophy: Arguments For Conservatism (2006)
   * England: An Elegy (2006)
   * A Dictionary Of Political Thought (2007)
   * Culture Counts: Faith and Feeling in a World Besieged (2007)
   * The Uses of Pessimism: And the Danger of False Hope (2010)

   * Xanthippic Dialogues (1993)
   * Perictione in Colophon (2000)

and can give a brief summary of some of his key themes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.8.64 (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That obviously would be a great help towards correcting the above deficiencies. I have his 2006 book Arguments for Conservatism (a compendium of essays that were published at various times throughout his career) -- see [8] here) which I will try to use to some extent as well, where appropriate. Jprw (talk) 07:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Unpaid appointment

To the anon, why is it irrelevant and misleading to say that the Oxford teaching post is unpaid? [9] Scruton himself points this out. Not to do so gives the misleading impression that he's a university employee. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It is irrelevant and misleading because 1) It is a level of personal detail that is hardly justified on its own merits for inclusion in such a short article in Wikipedia 2) It is misleading (which is presumably why you want to include it) because it implies that Scruton is a marginal figure who is unable to get full time paid employment as a lecturer on aesthetics. You would be hard pressed however to find anybody who knows about the subject (which I am guessing you don't) that disputes (whether they see themselves as his friends or enemies) that Scruton is currently one of the most imortant writers on the topic of the philosophy of aesthetics in the English speaking world. His philosophy textbooks are highly regarded, but are money spinners and are not intended to be original. His writings on politics are controversial, and because they are on the political Right, are not widely studied in universities. There are few academics in a philosophy department however who deny his status as one of the most important current writers on the philosophy of aesthetics, even if they disagree with every word. If you do not know that, you should not be contributing to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.4.199 (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The "level of personal detail" you're complaining about consists of three words, and whether he's an employee of the university isn't a personal matter. The point is that it's misleading to imply in the lead that he holds a paid professorship at Oxford, because he doesn't, and has pointed that out himself. If he's regarded by his peers as the foremost writer on aesthetics in the English-speaking world, by all means provide a source to that effect. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


Of course it is a personal detail, it only ceases to become a personal detail if it is relevant to the point at issue, namely his standing amongst professional philosophers as a theorist of aesthetics. As I suspected, you know absolutely nothing about this, you are simply pursuing a personal campaign again Scruton, presumably because you disagree with his politics. As for the matter of whether or not his writings on the philosophy of aesthetics pass muster with other academics, the fact that you are unware that he is widely regarded as a leading theorist in this field in the English speaking world (by his critics as well as his supporters) rather proves my point. I suggest you Google it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.4.199 (talk • contribs)

This isn't an article in an academic journal aimed at professional philosophers. It's written for a general readership. We shouldn't give them the impression that he's a professor at Oxford.
Please stop assuming that I know nothing about it, or that I disagree with his politics, or that I'm pursuing a campaign. Or that my agreement or disagreement would change the way I edit. No one familiar with my editing on Wikipedia would accuse me of using a BLP to pursue a campaign. Unless you have an actual argument against making clear that the position at Oxford is an unpaid one, I'll be restoring it.
Also, please sign your posts (four tildes, top left on the keyboard). SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

All I know about you is the evidence of your edits, and so yes, I will continue to assume that you know nothing about the academic standing of Scruton as a theorist in aesthetics. As for "nobody" familiar with your editing on Wikipedia accusing you of anything other than balanced edits and reasonable behaviour, I note somebody describing you as "a deeply mendacious and disingenuous individual" on this very talk page! Maybe you have selective reading? You certainly seem to have selective comprehension. That fact that you are so keen to include the fact that the above mentioned Oxford teaching position is unpaid rather proves my point that it is not simply a trivial matter of three words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.4.199 (talk • contribs)

I see you elsewhere [10] [11] telling editors they are bigoted and ignorant. If you continue to insult people, you risk being reported and blocked from editing. Please focus on content. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to adhere to the theory that nobody is bigoted or ignorant. I wonder why such words exist? Oh yes, because bigotry and ignorance is (even on Wikipedia) not uncommon. Whether or not you yourself prove to be bigoted and ignorant I judge entirely on your behaviour here. So far you seem unaware of the standing of Scruton as a theorist in aesthetics, and determined to include information that gives the misleading impression that Scruton is not a philosopher of high professional standing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.4.199 (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

When Scruton writes about this appointment, he points out himself that it is unpaid. If you respect him so much, please respect that choice of his. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

=Your language gives yourself away "if you respect him so much"! I am simply reporting what seems to be news to you, that he is generally regarded by experts in the field as one of the leading living theorists of aesthetics, regardless of their opinion about the truth or otherwise of his claims.

Of course the fact that he is not being paid for this post is true. I am not aware that anybody has disputed it. But as you know full well (I am beginning to understand why the epithet "disingeneous" has been applied to you) seeking to include this bit of information in a short article gives the utterly misleading (and it seems in your case intended) impression that his contributions in this area are not of a professional standard, and therefore he is being unpaid.

(88.110.4.199 (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)).

Summary of his Key Philosophical Ideas

Extended content

I promised I would provide a brief text based summary - a non-trival task but something I could achieve in a few hours - of some of his key philosophical themes in the philosophy sub-section, but somebody called "Slim Virgin" feels she knows his work better, and keeps deleting my contributions. I welcome the opportunity to have a textual discussion of his writings with her, but it seems that her knowledge of his philosophical work is approximately zero. I could always wait until she gets round to reading and comprehending his books, but then again the universe might come to an end in the meantime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.78.147 (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you 88.110.8.64, who said he would add this material yesterday? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I promised I would provide a brief text based summary - a non-trival task but something I could achieve in a few hours - of some of his key philosophical themes in the philosophy sub-section, but since "Slim Virgin" keeps deleting my contributions, and indeed she has now requested that I be banned from making any contributions to this article, why would I bother, which is presumably her purpose. The similarity between her actions and the sort of totalitarian mindset which Scruton criticizes, for example in his discussion of 1984, of course entirely escapes her.

If people compare my last edit 14:07, 6 December 2010 85.211.78.147 with her subsequent efforts, people will have to make up their own minds who is trying to improve the article with text based summaries of what Scruton actually wrote, and who is not interested in the content of his writings, but is only focused (for reasons best known to themselves - although I can guess) in engaging in a rather pathetic and spiteful campaign of reversions and deletions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.78.147 (talk)

Your IPs were blocked by someone else because another editor believes you're the reincarnation of a banned editor. You've been insulting and abusing editors on other talk pages too. Your edits here were problematic, because you used Scruton's words without careful attribution. You did add references, but not sufficient in-text attribution. See WP:PLAGIARISM. For all your complaining about me, I'm the one who now has to sort it out, and I've been doing that rather than simply removing it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


Don't tell lies Slim Virgin. This Roger Scruton article is the Wikipedia page from which I have been blocked. Each word you type reveals more and more of your character. It is part of the charm of Wikipedia that (unlike a totalitarian society) people can view the evidence for themselves, and make up their own minds. You notice that I only described your actions as "not interested in the content of his writings, but...focused (for reasons best known to themselves - although I can guess) in engaging in a rather pathetic and spiteful campaign of reversions and deletions" after you had me banned from making changes to the Roger Scruton article.

Given your behaviour it is hardly surprising that I make that charge.

People can view my changes (and your changes) and make up their own minds. Prior to that I simply claimed that you knew next to nothing about the writings of Roger Scruton (an opinion which I notice you do not dispute), and noted that other contributors had a low opinion of your character and edits (which people can see for their own eyes higher up in this Talk Page). With your every post I can see why they formed this opinion of you.

You mention I have been insulting and abusing editors. You are talking about a discussion page on "Right-Wing politics". I think you will find I was not (UNLIKE the Roger Scruton entry) banned. The reason for this is that (as any reader will discover) if you look at those pages my contributions (notwithstanding their controversial character - I said that Fascism is not Right-Wing) were content filled and relevant, and have shifted the debate. Some people it is true were keen (not unlike yourself) that I not challenge their (false) account. You also it seems want the Scruton article to reflect your limited knowledge. Again people will have to look at the evidence for themselves and decide who is the bigot.

Your claim that because what I added (with extensive references to original sources) is closely based on what Scruton has written (as opposed to articles in The Guardian which seems to be your preferred source) it is PLAGIARISM would be almost funny were it not so pathetic. Maybe we should abandon calling it the Roger Scruton page and call it the SLIM VIRGIN "What I think about Roger Scruton page" instead?

You have indeed tried to "sort it out". My suggestion is, do not bother, because it seems largely to consist to returning it back to the (inadequate text) you wrote before. I would improve the text but I am banned from contributing to the article. It just so happened that a false claim that I am a "banned editor" mysteriously enabled you to revert the text, applying your "editing skill" so that only that of which you approve remains. What a noble soul you are for not deleting everything and simply replaced it with "Slim Virgin Woz Ere" or "I hate Roger Scruton". Maybe you should have another medal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.75.243 (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The Leftist Subversion of "Slim Virgin"

Actually it is worse than I thought. Closely reading the article I cannot help noticing how so many of changes to this article by the individual who calls herself "Slim Virgin" persistently but subtly subvert its content. Are you trying for the 1984 medal "Slim Virgin"? You truly are a contemptible individual. I find it hard to believe it is unconscious. It is too consistent to be accidental. It is evident that your purpose is to delete or subtly subvert each and every attempt to produce a more accurate entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.84.10 (talk • contribs)

I'm not going to get into an argument about this. For the benefit of anyone else reading this, your other IP range (88.110.0.0/20) was blocked because other editors believe you're the reincarnation of a banned editor. It was your behavior on Talk:Right-wing politics—a talk page and article I don't edit—that gave rise to this suspicion, as well as leading to a request to semi-protect that page because of your personal attacks. This article was semi-protected to stop any IP edits. I'm listing below the IPs you've been using, then editors can judge for themselves how helpful your input has been. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Extended content
Adding here that the editing has included a clear copyright violation at Philip Rieff; see Talk:Philip Rieff#Copyright violation. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


You really are a hate filled person aren't you! You make up this, oh so convenient, fabrication, that I am a "banned editor", and then use it (notwithstanding the fact that it is completely made up) to justify banning me from editing the article. Why? So you can carry on subverting the entry, because it is about somebody you dislike.

Not satisfied with that, you cite the fact that I produced a summary in a few lines of the last few books by Philip Rieff that are so accurate to those books they are a copyright violation! It shows only that I have produced an accurate and fair brief summary. Rieff and his publishers would be delighted!

You on the other hand, if the article on Roger Scruton is anything to go by, persistently and systematically misrepresent the authors you dislike. As for the De Maistre article, I cleared up a misleading reference to Berlin which, in a manner no doubt familiar to you, used him in a way that completely misrepresented (if you go back to the original text) his claims. Again, you are keen to come to the defence of subversion rather than accuracy. I wonder why? As I say, every word you type reveals what a deeply poisonous individual you are, and yes, I do think you are unfit to be a Wikipedia editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.84.10 (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Rieff article I see that your objection amounts to the fact that use was made of a couple of sentences from an article in "Chronicle of Higher Education Journal" because they give a useful brief summary of some of his claims. Of course a well balanced individual would have improved the entry by simply including the reference. You however think that all the changes I have made to the article should be deleted.

You are a textbook example of the hate filled narcissism of some on the Left. No doubt you pride yourself on your subversion. Delete (or subvert) is your final solution to each and every problem. Anybody who looks at any of the changes I have made to any of the articles on Wikipedia to which I have contributed (a sample of which you quote) can see that I am motivated by accuracy and fairness. In talk pages it is true I have not in the past (and will not in the future) disguise my contempt for individuals (such as yourself) who decide to use Wikipedia simply a vehicle for their subversion. "So mußt du sein, dir kannst du nicht entfliehen" indeed!

(85.211.84.10 (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)).

It seems to me that SlimVirgin has been improving this article, which is exactly as I would have expected. There is a legitimate tension between Scruton's philsophical work and what is widely and reliably reported about him but the tone of the criticism here of SlimVirgin's editing is wholly inappropriate. Thincat (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I actually note with concern and alarm the tactics employed by SlimVirgin in her discussion with user 85.211.75.243/ 88.110.4.199. I think they can roughly be summed up as follows:
  • She goes to Admin with a false charge against him, just after user 85.211.75.243/ 88.110.4.199 clearly bests her here in an argument for why "an unpaid appointment" should not be included in the lead (indeed, the case made by the anon user seems unanswerable). At Admin SlimVirgin, perhaps as a result of sour grapes, makes this false accusation – in fact a lie (he called me bigoted and ignorant, he's very rude, etc. etc. – it is clear from the discussion above that user 85.211.75.243/ 88.110.4.199 did NOT do this) and through colluding successfully with a fellow admin she has the Roger Scruton page semi-protected, which in effect will censor (as SV knew full well) user 85.211.75.243/ 88.110.4.199 (since he is an unregistered user) from editing it.
  • Instead of addressing directly the valid points and concerns raised by user 85.211.75.243/ 88.110.4.199, SV resorts to a bizarre form of Wikilawyering and/or obfuscation. But I am used to this from her.

The net effect of this is that we have lost an editor who could have contributed greatly to this article. I wonder, for example, how many people out there have the number of books user 85.211.75.243/ 88.110.4.199 refers to here, let alone be willing to use them? This is censorship, totalitarian style – Stalin said "no person, no problem". At Wikipedia SlimVirgin has successfully refined this dictum to "No editor, no problem", it seems. Jprw (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This does not help the article, or your position. I fear Hitler's SS may be making an appearance in these criticisms soon. Thincat (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


To address the "points" made by "Thincat". You do not seem to realise that if you follow your "It seems to me that SlimVirgin has been improving this article" declaration (no evidence given needless to add) with the further assertion "which is exactly as I would have expected" you rather undermines any pretence of objectivity! The fact that you then add that "I fear Hitler's SS may be making an appearance in these pages soon" only serves to undermine your credibility even further. As for your assertion that there is a "legitimate tension" between what Scruton "actually wrote" and what is "widely and reliably reported about him" I am sure that even you can see that this claim is too incoherent to merit a response.

Looking at the edits which SlimVirgin is making to the Roger Scruton entry, I notice that she is backtracking somewhat (it is amazing how Wikipedia behaviour can change once attention is drawn to it - shame perhaps or maybe just protecting her back given that people are calling her out on her claim that she is trying to be objective) and some of her changes are clearly an improvement. I think that having a separate religion section is a good idea, especially as in the last few years Scruton has become a Christian - the reference to his parents not being churchgoers in his youth however is of course irrelevant. But the criticisms remain. Take the fact that SlimVirgin puts back some selected books by Scruton in the Introduction. It was pointed out to her that this is not a good idea, because Scruton does not have (as many authors do) a few key or best known books. One of the criticisms you could make of him is that he keeps on producing book after book, on topic after topic, year after year, on issue after issue, with common themes, but with no book or books which you can say, read this and you will understand his philosophy. This was explained to her i.e. that it is better just to have a (lengthy) list of his publications at the end of the article, with the main text of the article picking out some of his key arguments, but no, she just keeps returning her introduction. This is sheer vanity.

I could go down her edits and provide example after example where she puts her ego before the accuracy of the article, and unfortunately in many of them I am afraid I do detect a polemical intent to obscure or undermine Scruton (it is not hard to guess her political sympathies) quite at odds with her pretence that she is merely being an objective editor. To whom is she pretending? I am not sure. To her credit she has (unlike some of the more lazy 1984 brigade) gone back to a couple of the actual texts. No doubt she hoped to find my summary an inaccurate one, but alas she has just had to content herself with saying "Scruton says" and adding further information from his texts that (in my opinion) obscures rather than clarifies the arguments which Scruton is making. This is possibly deliberate on her part, although it may simply be that she finds conservative political arguments incomprehensible.

Of course the article can be improved, but SlimVirgin has requested that I be banned from editing the article. Yes this is Stalinist (not to say petty and vindictive) and even if I am permitted to improve the article the chances are very high that SlimVirgin will be every bit as proprietorial in the future as she has been in the past. Indeed given the fact I have pointed out her thinly disguised tendency to be vindictive, she will probably be even worse! I suggest that she stick to editing articles in Wikipedia on topics about which she has some knowledge.

Many thanks Jprw for your support. I am no doubt too blunt in my responses, but I cannot stand bullying, especially the sort of bullying that pretends to be "just following the rules", and I detest even more people using Wikipedia as a vehicle for their own partisan (often political) hatreds. Just put up the facts (and where there is dispute the opinions) and let people make up their own minds. The totalitarian mindset of some people on Wikipedia is very evident. Truth is always secondary to such people. Indeed truth is their enemy not their friend. Come to think of it, there is an obvious similarity between this sort of behaviour in Wikipedia, and they way Scruton has been treated in real life.

(85.211.84.10 (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)).

Plagiarism

For the benefit of other editors reading this, the anon has been engaged in plagiarism, using dynamic IPs. See a list here; they resolve to Nottingham, Leeds, or just the UK.

His edits at Philip Rieff here in November copied word for word several paragraphs from a 2005 article by David Glenn in the Chronicle of Higher Education. See Talk:Philip Rieff#Copyright violation for the points of comparison. The Chronicle article was copied without any form of citation or attribution. See Wikipedia:Plagiarism and Wikipedia:Copyright violations.

He did the same in the Scruton article, here (see the Conservatism section), copying Roger Scruton's words without in-text attribution. The editing here wasn't so bad because he did provide citations, which is why I fixed it up rather than removing it.

In addition to that, other editors, independently of me, requested page protection at Talk:Right-wing politics because of the anon's sustained personal attacks, and one of them reported him as the sockpuppet of a banned editor, User:Yorkshirian, which is why some of the IPs were range-blocked; see the SPI report. This article was semi-protected to prevent him from editing it using other IPs. I have no opinion about whether he's Yorkshirian; see Yorkshirian's community ban discussion for more about him. I do know that, regardless of who he is, the anon's editing can't be trusted because of the plagiarism, and his frequent talk-page attacks are unacceptable. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No editor, no problem (Part 2)

[post removed per semi-protection] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

85.211.84.10: If you insist on using disrespectful language (by, for example, calling a fellow editor "a truly nasty woman") your chances of being able to edit articles (and talk pages) in the future will rapidly diminish. Civility (as per WP:Civility) is a definite sine qua non when it comes to discussions on Wikipedia. Gabbe (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

For any readers interested in the anon user's rebuttal to Slim Virgin's latest lies here please go to my talk page. The rebuttal and a further explanation (which she has expunged twice now from this page) can also be read here. SV's mendacity and cowardice in this matter has been truly disgraceful. The fact that she is able to get away with it so blatantly and not receive sanction from Admin, who rather instead choose to aid and abet her in her chosen goal – that of silencing any editor who takes a well-argued contrary view to her own or who bests her in argument – is a truly sad reflection of the standards that are tolerated here. And her latest ruse – to make serious baseless or at least unproven allegations against the anon user, and then arrange it so that he is incapable of defending himself against those allegations – is nothing less than shameful. Meanwhile, the Roger Scruton article continues to flounder in mediocrity. Jprw (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Talking about another editor's "mendacity and cowardice" is completely inappropriate. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Please be more considerate in your choice of words. Gabbe (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Views on sexual desire

I have two criticisms of the latest edit by SlimVirgin. Firstly I would contend that the line 'Martin Stafford wrote that Scruton's views could be summarized as follows' is a distortion of the source. In the article it is quite clear that Stafford intends that summary to be an overview of the recent essay and newspaper piece written by Scruton, which he is contrasting with the opinions Scruton outlined in Sexual Desire. It is therefore not correct to imply that this summary is a description of some permanent viewpoint which occupies a place in the annals of 'Scruton's views'. Secondly, I think it is totally unnecessary for the line about the St Andrews' students to be moved to the top of the article. Why did you do this? It creates the false impression that the only views which Scruton has on 'sexual desire' are about homosexuality or at least that his musings on homosexuality are amongst his most elaborated - it can not be overstated how emphatically false this is (something which anyone who is familiar with his work would know). The paragraph is far, far too conflated as it is. 129.234.156.152 (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

His views on homosexuality are highly controversial, so they're going to be the focus of that section. The passage you're objecting to reads:

In an essay, "Sexual morality and the liberal consensus" (1989), Scruton wrote that certain people of any generation are attracted to their own sex, but he defended the prohibition and avoidance of homosexual acts on the grounds that it leads to the "sublimated interest in the young" shown by priests, teachers, scout-masters, and others.[15] He argued in The Sunday Telegraph that it was important to instill in children feelings of revulsion toward homosexuality. Martin Stafford wrote that Scruton's views could be summarized as follows: because gays have no children, and therefore no interest in society, they can indulge themselves carnally without restraint; only by sublimating those desires could they acquire a stake in society, Stafford writes.

Last sentence sourced to: Stafford, J. Martin. "The Two Minds of Roger Scruton", Studies in Philosophy and Education, 11, 1991, pp. 187–193.
Are you saying Stafford's view is an inaccurate summary, or our summary of Stafford is inaccurate? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm disputing that the description is a summary of Scruton's views, because the article makes it quite clear that is merely a summary of a recent essay by Scruton - one which Stafford is comparing with a different work of Scruton's. One only has to read the published summary of Stafford's article to see this. Or take a later sentence in the article where, when comparing Sexual Desire with the essay, he describes a striking incongruity between the sober reflections of Scruton the philosopher and the demotic rantings of Scruton the man. I will avoid repetition and merely refer back to my previous comment.

I still don't see why you moved the St Andrews sentence either. It makes the section disorderly and I still stand by my objection that his views on wider sexual issues occupy a far greater part of his work and reputation. Only last year for example he discussed them at length in his book Beauty and also broadcast a BBC documentary where he discussed sexual feelings and their connection to Platonic ideas. 129.234.156.152 (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In that case, rather than removing the points Scruton made in the articles Stafford is writing about, why not extend the section to discuss how these views differ from his earlier views in Sexual Desire? The best way to make sure things are properly in context is to provide that context. Regarding St Andrews, I have no problem if you move it back to the end. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There, I hope that's sorted now. 129.234.156.152 (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine, thanks. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Source requests

These paragraphs have been unsourced for some time. Posting them here before removing in case someone has sources. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Dissidents, Lebanon

From 1979, Scruton was an active supporter of dissidents in Czechoslovakia when the country was under the rule of the Communist Party. Inspired by Kathy Wilkes, whom he eulogized in England: An Elegy, he participated in the "underground university" set up by the dissidents. In 1980 in Oxford, he co-founded the Jan Hus Educational Foundation, which continues to work in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and served as trustee. Since 1990 he has been a board member of the Civic Institute in Prague. For his services to the Czech people, he received the 1st June Prize of the City of Plzeň in 1996 and the Medal for Merit, First Class of the Czech Republic in 2000. He was also co-founder and trustee of the Jagiellonian Trust, working in Poland and Hungary from 1982 until the return of democracy in 1989, and founder and trustee of the Anglo-Lebanese Cultural Association, working for reconciliation between the Lebanese sects from 1987 until it was disbanded in 1995, after the occupation of Lebanon by Syria. [citation needed]

Educational Research Trust

He is also a trustee of the Educational Research Trust.[citation needed] (removed)

Various

He remains on The Salisbury Review's editorial board, as well as those of the British Journal of Aesthetics and openDemocracy.net. He has published several novels and short stories, and has written two operas, for which he provided both the libretto and music. His first opera, The Minister, was performed in Quenington in 1994 and in Oxford in 1998. His second opera, Violet, based on the life of the harpsichordist Violet Gordon-Woodhouse, was performed twice in London in 2005. [citation needed]

I'm about to remove some of this, in case someone wants to look around for a source. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

The editor SlimVirgin has removed the POV tag with the slightly cryptic comment: rvmd tag (it can't be used as a weapon in the absence of discussion)

I originally put the tag on, and these are among my reasons:

  • The undue weight given to comparatively minor episodes in Scruton’s career (JVI tobacco, views on sexual desire) that are clearly intended to paint Scruton in a negative light. The JVI section in particular is horribly bloated, as well as badly written;
  • The removal of references to positive aspects of his career, for example his heroic work in supporting dissidents in the then Czechoslovakia which was recognised by his being awarded the Medal for Merit, First Class, by the government of the Czech Republic in 2000;
  • The sly digs intended to undermine and demean his standing as a professional philosopher, given full prominence by being inserted in the lead of the article (of course, as well as being subtly pejorative, this is in any case excessive detail for the lead);
  • The Grayling quote ("Scruton is a wonderful teacher of philosophy") being removed from the lead to a less prominent location in the article.

In view of these issues I am going to reinsert the POV tag. In the meantime I might try and do something about getting his activism in Czechoslovakia referenced somewhere in the article. Jprw (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality (continued)

The editor SlimVirgin has again removed the POV, this time with the slightly garbled comment:

(rmvd tag (you're the only person who wants it, and it can't stay forever), and some tidying (you can't add praise to the lead, while removing criticism -- we need all or none))

I would have thought that being awarded the highest honour possible for a civilian by a foreign government is not "praise" but simply an important fact that is significant enough to merit a mention in the lead. And certainly more significant than whether or not one of his teaching posts was unpaid or not. Further prima facie proof that this editor is incapable of editing this page objectively or rationally. The banner must therefore be reinstated. Jprw (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There has to be more than one person wanting an article tagged, Jprw. You added it months ago, and it can't be tagged forever, so please try to gain consensus for your view, or let it go. As for the honour, you're using his own website as a source. Against that, you don't want to include multiple articles and books discussing his relationship with a tobacco company. If we mention the former in the lead, then we mention the latter too, per WP:LEAD.
As for the "wonderful teacher of philosophy," it's not as straightforward as you're assuming. I am certain the comment was intended as a compliment. But I can tell you that when one philosopher says of another that they teach it well, it's not always intended that way, which is why I removed it from the lead. Added to which it stuck out like a sore thumb in terms of the writing. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The source is actually from Radio Prague
  • I'm not against the tobacco controversy being included, what I am against is it being gone into in excruciating detail and being badly written taboot (we've gone through this before, I don't remember anyone springing to your defence about the current wording).
  • "it stuck out like a sore thumb in terms of the writing". No it didn't. However, "an unpaid appointment" does.
  • But I can tell you that when one philosopher says of another that they teach it well, it's not always intended that way What on earth are you talking about?

All I see is increased evidence that you are incapable of editing this article objectively or rationally, and your comments on the talk pages continue to be laced with conceit and untruths. Jprw (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

Jprw has now restored the POV tag for at least the fourth time since December. [12] [13] [14] [15] He seems to be the only person who wants it, and his views aren't actionable within the policies because he wants to remove, or further minimize, Scruton's being paid to place articles on behalf of a tobacco company; see the third about fourth paragraphs in this section (now moved to this section).

That issue probably caused reliable sources to write about Scruton more than any other issue he's been involved in—see some of the sources listed here—so it should really be referred to in the lead, but isn't. To minimize it even further would be completely inappropriate, and there was strong consensus on talk that it should stay; see Talk:Roger Scruton/Archive 1#Tobacco Case.

Does anyone else feel the POV tag should stay, and if so why? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


Significant structural change: Philosophy lecturer sub-section under Career

I made this change last night, when it dawned on me that the list of universities that he has taught at should only be in the main body of the article or perhaps in an appendix. To sum up his lecturing career, I added "Scruton has lectured in philosophy since 1971 on both sides of the Atlantic" (which though not perfect and which no doubt could be embellished a bit looks like a fully appropriate style for the lead), and created a Philosophy lecturer sub-section under Career. Nevertheless, the editor called SlimVirgin within minutes reverted here with the comment "the lead needs more, otherwise it gives a false impression and violates LEAD". But how I wonder does reworking the lead so that it summarises the article (and not the other way around) create a false impression and violate LEAD? Jprw (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it gave the impression that he's worked as a lecturer since 1971, but in fact he hasn't been in academia full-time—or part-time lecturing—since he left Birkbeck in 1992. If you read the books he published during the years following that he called himself a writer. You're giving a false impression of his academic involvement. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In that case why not just tweak the wording slightly: Scruton has held various positions on both sides of the Atlantic as a lecturer of philosophy for forty years. Something along these lines, that sensibly summarises the details in the sub-section in the main body of the article. Jprw (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Because he hasn't held positions as a lecturer for 40 years, as the previous lead, the sources, and Scruton himself make clear. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Neutrality check at Roger Scruton

The POV tag has been on this article almost continuously since December [16] at the request of one editor, and fresh eyes would therefore be appreciated. There are six issues (see here for more detail):

  1. it's felt that the article gives too much weight in this section to Scruton's consultancy with a tobacco company;
  2. also too much weight in this section to his views on sexual desire;
  3. that his work supporting dissidents in this section should be in the lead;
  4. that another philosopher, A. C. Grayling, calling him a wonderful teacher of philosophy in this section should be in the lead;
  5. that we should not say that his visiting professorship at Oxford in this section is unpaid. This point may be resolved now as I've removed it entirely from the lead, rather than make clear it's unpaid; I think the objection was only to the unpaid factor being mentioned in the lead.

Input from uninvolved editors—even if only on one of the points—would be very helpful. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: the structure and content of the article has changed since I posted this, with some new subheads, so here are new links to the above:
  1. tobacco section;
  2. his views on sexual desire;
  3. his work supporting dissidents
  4. A.C. Grayling's comment about him;
  5. visiting professorship at Oxford.
SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

  • My view is that the article strikes a good balance, though it needs some more development. Scruton is a controversial figure in England. In 2000, Nicholas Roe in The Guardian called him "one of the most contentious figures in British public life," because of his conservative views, which have made him a lightning rod, in Roe's words, for criticism from the left. [17] We don't make clear in the article quite how extensive that criticism has been, which I see as a good thing, per BLP. On the other hand, we can't go in the other direction and turn it into a vanity article.

    For example, that he was receiving the equivalent of a full-time salary from a tobacco company for several years, while writing pro-tobacco material without declaring an interest—including a 65-page pamphlet criticizing the World Health Organization's anti-tobacco position (see this section)—attracted a great deal of criticism, including from the British Medical Journal; see the BMJ's article here, and some of the other sources here. We don't mention it in the lead (though arguably we ought to, per WP:LEAD), so to minimize it even further would be wrong. Similarly, it would be wrong to give the impression in the lead that he's a professor at Oxford, without mentioning that it's an unpaid visiting professorship, which Scruton himself points out; see here. In my view, the lead currently strikes the right tone by being informative, but bland enough not to need balancing out in either direction.

    As for his views on sexual desire, and specifically homosexuality (see this section)—again, they are or were highly contentious; students at St. Andrews recently objected to his being offered a part-time research position because of them. The section tries to explain what he meant by them, and the danger of cutting it further would be that the explanation would become less clear. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts are that=
  • (A)Go ahead and mention both his role and the unpaid nature of it. It's pertinent information, why not? It's something distinguishing him from many popular intellectual-type writers. Blandness does not make for a better article.
  • (B)Way too much material is there about sex. I guess its because flesh and blood people carry more about sex then that brainy-type things (/failed-humor-attempt). But, seriously, he is not a sexuality/psychology expert. That's not his forte. I'd cut the section in half or more.
  • (C)Because of the Guardian article, The Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal suspended his writings. So, it's a major thing in his recent life history... perhaps the section should be trimmed (at two huge paragraphs currently). Not sure how. I have mixed feelings here.

Further thoughts? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Argument about student protests seems to me to hold little water. Did it really matter in terms of his life, his work, etc. that a few young adults complained? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In dealing with Scruton, this article needs to reflect the fact that he is both (a) a serious and competent professional philosopher, and (b) an individual much drawn to public controversy, who enjoys (and makes money out of) making a provocative argument once in a while. To pretend that one can play down aspect (b) and focus only on aspect (a) is to miss the point about who he is and what his public persona is. Judged against this background, it seems to me that the current article makes a reasonable stab at balance on the more controversial questions. I do not feel the text is absurdly one-sided, and as such would advise caution on drastic redrafting from where we are.

This said, there are parts of the piece which might be edited somewhat for length (both controversial sections and some which are not especially controversial, such as the discussion of his childhood) -- not because they are unbalanced in themselves, but because they are longer than they need to be to make their point. The section on sexuality, for example, needs to continue to make clear what Scruton's own key statements on the subject have been, but could be shortened by being more selective in its references to what other people have interpreted Scruton to be saying. I would avoid significant cuts in the section on the tobacco controversy. It seems to me to offer accurate and fair coverage of a controversy that just cannot be ducked, and any editing down should not be taken as an excuse for covering up the basic facts of the matter. We all screw up periodically in our lives; public figures have the misfortune of often doing so in public -- it is one of the prices of fame that can't really be avoided! Nandt1 (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with 'an individual much drawn to public controversy, who enjoys (and makes money out of) making a provocative argument once in a while'... what evidence have you that he doesn't sincerely believe all of these ideas and philosophies? He may be dead wrong (I personally think gay parenting is fantastic and God bless those brave civil rights pioneers who adopt) but he doesn't lie just to make money. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I think you misunderstand my categorization of Scruton. To say that someone "enjoys (and makes money out of) making a provocative argument" is not to accuse that person of lying or being insincere. Nandt1 (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • My thoughts: Neither the Eastern European activism nor the debating & wine column should be in views, clearly. I've boldly moved them, which I think helps with 1 & 3. 4 is fine as is; 2 & 5 I don't have strong views - they seem ok now. Otherwise: I can only see one opera, better described as a chamber opera, on his website [18]. The performances should be mentioned. The lead should specify that he is or was a very public figure, never off the telly. Do all his little companies need to be mentioned? Is the consultancy still trading? This sentence "Clients included Japan Tobacco International; Somerfield Stores, advised about establishing a line of local produce; and opendemocracy.net, a political website." needs sorting out. Johnbod (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well to me nothing stands out in the article as undue weight; but I'm not overfamiliar with the subject. What does seem weird is the current structure (compare a few days ago) with much in the "Background" section which isn't background. And the tobacco thing relates to his business interests really, not his Views. The lead could possibly be expanded, and the article seems under-wikilinked, and I notice that there is no detail about the "two operas" mentioned in the lead. Someone must know titles, dates, performances, etc? PS re point 3: current content too vague to evaluate significance as being enough for the lead; point 4: no, such endorsements need to very clearly relate to the person's notability and impart useful information about the person to have a chance of lead inclusion; this is too vague and opiniony. It's pretty rare for such things to be lead-worthy, and this doesn't make the grade. point 5: the professorship needs to be characterised accurately, and it being unpaid is too significant to leave out if mentioned in the lead. Rd232 talk 23:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I may try to reorganize it chronologically. As it stands, some issues (e.g. his editing the Salisbury Review) are directly related to issues mentioned earlier in the article (e.g. the end of his professorship in the UK). Not seeing the chronology clearly is perhaps obscuring those relationships. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I gather that the article has changed somewhat since I received a message regarding the POV tag. All I can say is that the article as it stands certainly does not deserve a tag and none of the reasons summarised by SlimVirgin above would justify one. All notable criticism of an individual's views and actions should be incorporated with due weight. We do not put stray quotations in the lede unless they usefully sum up an important aspect of the topic. I do not see that there is too much weight given to criticism. Indeed, when it concerns a philosophical position criticism is central to exposition. We need to know what the arguments against a view are in order to understand the reasons for supporting it.
One point: Scruton certainly applied Burke's arguments to "socialism", but "socialism" did not exist as a political model when Burke was writing. He was attacking revolutionary egalitarianism based on claims that human behaviour could be moulded to conform to principles held by revolutionary leaders.
There are also legitimate criticisms to be made of the structure of the article, but these do not affect the POV. Paul B (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Sugar-Baby-Love. Include unpaid position, and the fact that Guardian article, The Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal suspended his writings. Cut the sex section. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In my earlier review of the "balance" issue, I missed the fact that someone had at some stage cut out of the "tobacco" section Scruton's own acknowledgement that he had erred in not "declaring an interest". That point does seem to me an essential feature of any balanced account of the tobacco story. Without it, that section is in my view definitely not balanced, and I have now reverted the cut. Nandt1 (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nandt, I have no problem with that being restored, but it's worth noting that editors with different POVs about the issue have removed it. I removed it because it seemed like unnecessary words, and rubbing it in a little. Of course he should have declared it, and he could hardly say otherwise once it was out. But if you think the paragraph needs it, that's fine by me too. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, SV. My take on this is that, in Scruton's initial comments when the story broke (comments which we cite here), he sought to make the issue one of The Guardian's actions in using purloined correspondence. In his response to the BMA, finally, he acknowledged that his own actions had been at fault. It seems to me that this acceptance on his part matters. This needn't be viewed in the sense of "rubbing it it"; in fact, if I were preparing a defense of Scruton, I might use this comment to argue that "he was big enough to admit that he had made a mistake....." Anyway, however one views the man and the story, I think this part belongs in. Nandt1 (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's a fair point. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for the comments so far. What I'm taking away from this at the moment is the following:

  • Overall the balance of the article is okay, and the POV tag can be removed.
  • The tobacco section does not violate UNDUE.
  • His work in Eastern Europe and A.C. Grayling's comment about him shouldn't be in the lead.
  • When we mention the Oxford professorship, we should make clear it's an unpaid visiting professorship; some say to mention it in the lead, others don't mind where.
  • The sexual desire section should be shortened, so I'll do that, but a word of caution about it. It may at some point need to be lengthened again, because it's a key part of Scruton's thought—though not as currently written—feeding into his views about women, society, human nature, the spiritual aspect of relationships, and so on. But the section as it stands doesn't really reflect that. Writing that section well would require more research, so I'll tighten it until someone who's done the reading is willing to write it.
  • His involvement in opera should be clarified, and we should include titles, dates, and performances.
  • The lead should clarify that he is, or was, a public figure in the UK, often on television.
  • We should clarify the sentence about Burke and socialism.

SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A judicious summing-up! Nandt1 (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree, except I think the lead, which is rather short, could and probably should mention the EE activism. Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
My concern about adding that to the lead is that we don't mention the failure to declare the tobacco consultancy, which was a major issue, especially given that he's a philosopher who has lectured on ethics. So my thinking is that, if we're not going to mention notable criticism, we can't very well mention less notable positive material, and should therefore stick to a summary of the basic facts about his career. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 00:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
That seems a tad presentist to me. He was perhaps best known for EE activism at the time & for a while afterwards. But I wouldn't insist. The lead is pretty short so both might go in. Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
We could include both, and I were writing this lead alone I would definitely include both, but one editor objected so strongly to the inclusion of the tobacco material in the article (or, rather, to the inclusion of any detailed presentation of it) that I didn't even suggest putting it in the lead. So that might require another RfC. I'm not sure Scruton was ever particularly well known for EE activism. There were a number of academics who were engaged in smuggling books to EE dissidents at the time (I helped one of them collect and store some of the books when I was a student, so I'm aware of the effort), but I don't recall any of them becoming particularly well-known for it, certainly not at the time. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Whatever discussion can be had as to editing (and isn't this always the case), at this point I can't see a need for a tag here. Perhaps it was deserving of one earlier, perhaps not, but at this point I would suggest its removal and continuation of the normal editing process.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Catholic

He's Catholic or Catholic inspired? That's news to me. I thought he was just a garden variety "low" Anglican believer. Why is he listed as an "Anglo-Catholic". Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; I've removed it. I believe he did consider joining the Catholic Church at one point, but decided against. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Good edit then.
I believe he did consider joining the Catholic Church at one point
Can you direct me to a specific article or blog post or something about that? [Just curious] Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
He talks a bit here about having considered Catholicism (end of p. 59ff). SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Interesting, I had thought that Anglo-Catholic meant that he was a member of one of those Catholic Anglican Churches.Threadnecromancer (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Threadnecromancer
That is my understanding of the term also. Nandt1 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
If the category was correct, I'm fine with it being restored, but I've yet not been able to find a source supporting it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

We should not apply categories to him unless we have a clear source. This is a BLP after-all. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The new right in Europe

I object strongly to the use of The New Right in Europe as a source for statements about Scruton in the lead. The book contains a brief, glancing mention of something like the description of Scruton that was added to the lead, but one cannot judge its significance or importance, since it is sourced in turn to another book. I find the description to be biased and tendentious. It is a label applied to Scruton by an external source, and not a way that he has ever identified himself. I do not believe that it meets the test of due weight, or of neutral point of view. Philosophy Teacher (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've tidied the sourcing, and added some quotes to the footnote. [19] He was a leading member of the New Right on the social-authoritarian side (as opposed to libertarian), particularly via his editorship of The Salisbury Review. This isn't a contentious issue that I'm aware of. What is your objection to it? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 12:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sexual Desire

I expanded the lead of this article to include a mention of Sexual Desire. The reason for including this material this should have been self-evident, but User: SlimVirgin removed it without comment or explanation. I will restore the material. Sexual Desire is one of Scruton's best known works, one of the works that has provoked the most reaction, and even one of the works that defines his career. I will not argue this point, since anyone who is familiar with Scruton would know these things. Anyone not aware of these facts lacks the knowledge or competence required to edit the article. I hope User:SlimVirgin does not fall in that category, as she has been very active here. Philosophy Teacher (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The usual insults. Have you edited this page before with another IP address or account?
Do you have any sources to indicate that it's his best-known work? In the meantime, I'll leave it in, but as the list is longer now, I'll edit it so we have one from each decade. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Reputation within Architecture Academia (N.America)

Due to the passé and shallow nature of his 1979 publication The Aesthetics Of Architecture[45], the name Roger Scruton became a particularly unkind euphemism for those with amateurish views of Architecture. Originating from architecture schools of the Ivy League universities in America, the euphemism is often used in critique sessions of design studios. The propagation of the term within the Ivy League circle undoubtedly stems from the fact that Prof. Scruton’s poorly received work[46] was published by the university press of Princeton University – the architecture faculty of which bore the brunt of the joke ever since. The term is so deeply entrenched within American architecture academia that the aforementioned parvus opus enjoys a cult status and is a common gag gift for retiring architecture professors.

"passé and shallow nature" , "the name Roger Scruton became a particularly unkind euphemism for those with amateurish views of Architecture", POV anyone?????????, this section badly needs editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.66.219 (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section – it is nothing more than a thinly veiled attack against Scruton, written by an unregistered user that may well be an SPA. Jprw (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Restructuring

I've reordered the various sections. The structure of the article seems clearer and more logical now. Previously trivia came first and various sections had info that shouldn't have been in there. Jprw (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality

I think this article has way, way too much material about Scruton's ideas about sex in general, and about homosexuality in particular. Something has obviously gone very wrong in how it has developed. Frankly, I think it would be better to revert the article to an earlier version. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Which version are you suggesting we revert back to? Without commenting specifically on the material in question, the general rule is that topics within an article should receive weight proportionate to their coverage in independent secondary sources. See WP:WEIGHT. It often happens that writers will write about many topics, but some of them attract more attention that others.   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The article should be reverted to the version of 26 October, 2009. The bad editing that lead to the article being filled full of material about sex in general and homosexuality in particular seemed to start shortly afterwards. I should add that the amount of space given to controversies about Scruton's role in promoting smoking and tobacco is also grossly excessive. SlimVirgin appears to be the main culprit behind that, although there were several others. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
This version? It's less than half as long as the current version. That'd be a drastic change, deleting a lot of sourced material. Maybe it'd be better to focus on improving the current version instead of that wholesale reversion to a version from two years ago.   Will Beback  talk  06:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe? You mean you're not sure? I've decided to retire from Wikipedia, but if I had been going to stay, I'd certainly do the revert. The version of 26 October, 2009 is superior in every way to the current version, in my view. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I've pared it down. Under Slim Virgin's stewardship the article evolved into a gross POV piece that was chronically imbalanced in favour of the least relevant but most controversial aspects of Scruton's career, and read more like an article written by a Daily Mirror journalist who had a serious bee in his bonnet about the subject rather than a Wikipedia entry. Jprw (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roger_Scruton/Archive_1&oldid=1069867727"