Talk:Andrew Roberts, Baron Roberts of Belgravia

message: Up until about a year ago, Roberts wrote in each of his books, and in his standard biography, that he got a First from Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge before going straight on to work for a bank. He's never held any academic post or, as far as I'm aware, been enrolled in any PhD programme. (He's long been a Senior Scholar at Gonville and Caius, which is a purely honorary title, like being an Honorary Fellow.) 
But a year ago he started describing himself as "Dr." Andrew Roberts, and on his website he says he "took a first class honours degree in Modern History at Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge, from where he is an honorary senior scholar and a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)." So where did this doctorate come from? He certainly hasn't published anything thesis-worthy by way of original research in recent years (although his 1991 book on Halifax and his 1999 book on Salisbury would qualify, but that seems quite a long time ago). What I'm getting at is that it all sounds quite cagey and vague, and it sounds like he's implying he has an Honorary doctorate (a DLitt) rather than a PhD. Could someone who knows please clarify? Because if that's the case, then the article shouldn't use the title "Dr.", and should be amended - but I don't want to change it on a hunch, without solid proof!
Debonairchap (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He did recieve a 2:1 it says so on the sleeve of one of his early books, the man is very overrated in my opinion his book Hitler  and Churchill has some laughable assumptions even going as far as rejecting Churchills well known alcoholism. There is also an article in the observer i think in which he describe's himself as a gerontophile because he prefer's socialising with older people, a gerontophile prefer's having sex with older people, utter joke i doubt very much he is a PhD but even so people with PhD's dont refer to themselves as DR... 2A02:C7C:327B:2400:30BA:6063:37C2:B9D9 (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

text: I've nuanced the article accordingly, John. Do you happen to know whether he clingfilmed the bogs and painted the chapel at Cranleigh? He may be a bit of a Walter Mitty, but Roberts has certainly got a pair of balls on him. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

text: That's a great bit of research, Dr Roberts. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "Real" PhD, or honorary doctorate?

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

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

message: Should reports about inaccuracies in "A History" be noted? For example http://www.slate.com/id/2162837?nav=tap3
Nothing has been noted about his support for the "whiteman's burden" of imperialism for both the UK and the new American Empire.  There is a reason he is Bush's favorite historian. Seen TNR - White Man For the Job. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=rgEIzSVsAzw1JcO3DnkA6i%3D%3D
:Good point.  Read the article and added some text and a reference. MOXFYRE (contrib) 01:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reported Inaccuracies 

message: Do we really need to know which football team the blighter supports? Is it essential to record which car he drove at Cambridge? More criticism of his book (or at least a summary of what passes for its argument)would not go amiss, and less dreary dwelling on his personal eccentricities. Also, can someone confirm that he is still an honorary scholar at Gonville and Caius, Cambridge? I have never come across the man in the History faculty, and there is no reference to him on the Caius website.
Also - and it pains me to raise this topic again - Roberts is a writer of history, but is he really a historian? His highest academic accolade (that is not from Missoura) is an honours degree. That hardly makes him an academic historian.
He isnt a historian.  He writes and comments about history.  He doesnt hold an academic position. His writing is not based on primary historical research.
Actually his highest accolade is the two awards for his biography on Salisbury.
*A little unfair - I don't have much time for the man either (his recent books read like prep school history essays), but I don't think anyone has suggested his books are unscholarly trash, whether they agree with his views or not. His early book on Halifax was pretty decent as well. And doesn't sneering at him like that come across as sour grapes at a man who presumably makes a tidy living writing history for the general reader?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.192.0.10 (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reported Irrelevancies

message: Some individual, or individuals, possibly even Andrew Roberts himself, is clearly intent on removing sourced, factual information on this article if it is deemed to show Roberts in a bad light. It is a fact of reality that Roberts adressed the racist, pro-Apartheid Springbok Club, regardless of whatever he claims he knew about the club beforehand, and that he has been accused of making arguments in favour of genocide. These may be uncomfortable facts that Roberts and his friends would rather not have brought to attention but this is Wikipedia, not Hagiography Central. By any stretch this information is notable, and it is presented in neutral, unbiased language. The constant removal of this information is obviously a concerted attempt by some of Roberts' like-minded fans, or perhaps some associates or even the man himself, to keep unpleasant and/or embarrassing facts about the man off Wikipedia. It's been removed and put back dozens of times now, it happens at least every couple of weeks and it's outrageous to just keep removing factual material because it might show the subject in a bad light. In fact, it's vandalism. It should stop, or the article should get protected. And if it is actually Roberts himself trying to whitewash his own biography, maybe he should think twice in future unless he wants to make a very embarrassing appearance in the 'Wikipedia Whispers' section of Private Eye magazine and draw a great deal more attention to these episodes and the efforts to write them out of history. 217.38.66.40 19:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed this content because it is unsourced. I am not 'whitewashing' -- my only interest is that this article adheres to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Please read this link. It doesn't matter if you think it is a 'historical fact' -- you still need to provide a reliable source to support this content. You are welcome to add it back to the article when you do. Barret (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constant Removal of Material 

message: I removed that two blocks of text that contained poorly sourced controversial information (see this diff). One was sourced to an article at The New Republic that does not exist. The other was, incredibly, sourced to Private Eye. CIreland (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to put it back, it should be sourced to the relevant print issue of New Republic and cut down a little to the bare facts. It's only one person's commentary and over-emphasizing it would be undue weight. If you have other similar sources then that could justify a fuller treatment. CIreland (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP issues 

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

message: I've pared out the obvious self-advertisements.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.159.40 (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to identify the more recent sock-puppets.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.96.198 (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to eliminate more spam.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.173.208 (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Some absurd puffery and POV claims had been placed in this entry.

message: The opposite is true. The original entry was not objective at all. The tone was much too personalised- drunk at at school (I think we've all been there) if you look at other entries on historians- e.g. Anthony Beevor- Anne Applebaun- much more objective entries. Some of the statements made in the original are potentially libellous- making 'links' with far right- that are unproven (remember the 1983 Panorama programma 'Maggie's Militant Tendency': BBC ended up paying £1 milion in libel over that) The problem was the original entry  had no footnotes and was too personal.
In fact, it has links to all the criticisms made, sourcing them to impeccablly reliable outlets like The New Republic and the BBC. You must stop rmeoving well-sourced material and replacing it with absurd puff-claims.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.35.253 (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, accusing someone of being far right isn't libellous. Secondly, even it is, published opinion about Robert will count not matter how much you disagree with it. If someone claim in Gurdian that  Robert approve of having sex with donkey, the fact that it was published in a established news media protect it from being deleted. It is upto Robert to sue Guardian and force it to retract.Vapour (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

text: It is not quite relevant from wikipedia point of view to have both for/against view. Only relevance is to have verified view from media/academia. If someone accused Roberts of being a Maoist, in Fox News, then that reference should not be deleted. You are free to reference any published support for Roberts. Please respect others' freedom to do something likewise. Vapour (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Original Entry had only 1 reference

message: re: "However, The Economist drew attention to a number of historical, geographical errors, and typos[12]"
I cannot access the Economist link as it is a subscription service so the entry needs removing, all references need to freely available in the public domain on line without drawing on so called monetary-based 'free trials' Twobells (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is zero requirement that sources be free-to-view online. 2 lines of K303 12:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section Needs An Edit 

message: I've removed :  "At Cranleigh's, he was expelled for drinking, climbing on a roof and cling-filming the lavatories. He went on to a Cambridge crammer to prepare for his Oxbridge exam and was admitted to Cambridge. His 'teenage rebellion' phase now ended, he buckled down to studying.[ref][ref]" - Roberts gave the Lees Knowles lecture in Cambridge this evening and it was used in his intro but he denies the story. So we should take it down per BLP. NBeale (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Did he deny that his teenage rebellion is now over? You'd never have guessed. Maybe this is worthy of inclusion. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed sentence

message: While of course anyone is entitled to edit this page, I think if important biographical details are removed, the removal should be justified on the discussion page.  Recently SOCAMX removed references to Islamofascism and the 4th World War.  Yet to many people in the UK, Andrew Roberts is notable for being one of the most prominent advocates of this conflict.  During the build up to the war, he appeared frequently on television, arguing passionately for an invasion.  Since the war started, he has written extensively about the Fourth World War and idea of Islamofascism as an equivalent force to Nazism.    It is therefore reasonable to have this in his Wikipedia biography.  Removing this material looks uncomfortably like an attempt to clean up history, and it is ironic that it happens so often on this historians wiki page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.202.109 (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Fourth World War and Islamofascism

message: According to his own website, he lives in Central Park West, Manhattan, New York...Counter-revolutionary (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lives in Belgravia? 

message: The article indicates that Roberts 'took' a Doctor of Philosophy, implying that he beat one up. Even taking into consideration the limited fighting skills of most donnish types, I'd have thought this unlikely. In fact, I doubt Roberts could punch his way through wet cardboard. No offense, Dr. Roberts, and I'm always up for a dust-up if you want to prove me wrong. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor of Philosophy 

message: I heard that Roberts turned down an OBE, reportedly saying that Her Royal Highness can 'stick it where the sun don't shine'. Seems incredible. Any corroboration for this? --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  OBE? 

message: Roberts senior is said to have owned every Kentucky Fried Chicken in England. Is this true?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.96.198 (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senior 

message: Only one spouse listed in the little blue box. The other one is mentioned in the text, but not named. Valetude (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Camilla Sophie is said to be the first wife.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.173.208 (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wives? 

message: There were no sufficient reasons given for these edits, for the deletion of criticism of Roberts based on an article in The Independent: 
* 
* 
* 
* 
"I don't like him (the messenger)" is no sufficient reason.--Severino (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitewashing 

message: In the section "Support for the Iraq War and the "Fourth World War" we read "He has made no comment on the lack of weapons of mass destruction found nor on the hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis killed since the invasion." This is followed by a request for citation.  Can you really have a citation for comments that haven't been made? Is it even worth mentioning comments people haven't made? Cjyet (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it logical? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Andrew Roberts (historian). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020203134841/http://www.napoleon.org/fr/fondation/prix/index.asp to http://www.napoleon.org/Fr/fondation/prix/index.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does anybody else feel that the inclusion of a negative comment by The Economist in the opening isn't appropriate? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it gives too much weight to a single article. The line should be changed to something along the lines of "has been widely praised; while a minority of critics have attacked Roberts over his political views and alleged errors." Ageofultron 19:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism from ''The Economist'' in the lead to the article 

message: I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section:
* Cite templates will be used where possible.
* I prefer capitalization and punctuation to follow the standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, rather than "title case".
* Links (either direct or indirect) to potentially unreliable or incomplete digitised copies and to booksellers may be removed. 
This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography