Talk:Roger Scruton

WHO Issue

A couple of lines were removed from the WHO paragraph due to length. Personally I think the situation was significant enough to warrant the couple of hundred words included; certainly if it were to be reduced, the names and locations of his articles on smoking could potentially be removed - these could be found through the links provided. Matters such as the size of his salary from a tobacco company, and the letter from his wife making explicit the arrangement (and requesting a pay-rise) are extremely pertinent, and seem like definite inclusions. The heading should also reflect the content, which relates to tobacco company funding while writing about tobacco. Any thoughts on whether this paragraph is too long?

I notice there have been a couple of deletions / reverted on the section covering smoking, and the issue of tobacco funding. Please feel free to discuss any concerns or issues here if there is anything you think could be more concise, requires a reference, or could be added. Marty jar (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Jprw seems to think there are BLP problems with the material. I take BLP seriously, but Jprw has been unclear about exactly how he thinks the material is a problem under BLP. It would help if he could explain his position here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised editors cannot see why this material may be problematic for a BLP:

1. It's not consistently properly sourced ("without declaring an interest", etc.) 2. It carries too much weight and is gone into in too much detail 3. The entire episode is based on what Scruton claims was an email stolen by The Guardian; the incident has only received attention in The Guardian.

The account at least needs to be pared down, and perhaps deleted altogether. Sorry for the delay in responding. Jprw (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

If there really were a BLP problem here, I would think that more editors would have noticed it. In fact you appear to be the only editor who sees a problem. Removing the tobacco material altogether seems extreme and unwarranted to me. I would recommend that you consider the views of the larger Wikipedia community. Take the issue to the BLP noticeboard if you really think there is a problem. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think two paras is fine in a fairly long article. Please add more sourcing if needed. Span (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not able to add more sourcing. I am not sure either why more sourcing should be required. Note that I was not the editor who originally added the material. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the comment generally. If sourcing is being queried, then I'd encourage more sourcing. Span (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The point is that there aren't any more sources apart from the Guardian article – which is based on a stolen email. I still feel that the section needs to be pared down and that the excessive detail gone into is a reflection of certain editors' antipathy towards Scruton, i.e. it is non-neutral in tone. Further evidence of this is that editors do not even acknowledge that this material may be problematic from a BLP standpoint. As for the comment If there really were a BLP problem here, I would think that more editors would have noticed it. In fact you appear to be the only editor who sees a problem – thank goodness you weren't the twelfth juror in Twelve Angry Men. Jprw (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not sure there is a problem. I don't consider it relevant what the Guardian article is based upon. But feel free to place a request for comment, or take up the issue on the BLP notice board, if you do see a problem. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

To add to the discussion above, I believe I was the editor who added the paragraphs on the Tobacco Industry conflict of interest, and tbh I'm rather puzzled by the nature of the discussion on the paragraph - I certainly don't see any substantive objection. To run through answers to a few points: 1) The claim that it was 'only' carried in the Guardian would be irrelevant if true as the accuracy of the source is not being contested. However it's not true anyway; Scruton himself acknowledged the conflict of interest problem, as did the IEA who changed their declaration policy, and it was carried by other outlets. 2) There's no evidence that the letter was "stolen", but regardless, this would again be irrelevant - It's provenance isn't disputed by those involved. 3) The references appear to have been sufficient; valid and direct, and no argument's been put forward contesting their accuracy. However to address any concerns, additional references will be added to provide further background. 4) It's a quite substantial conflict of interest issue from a polemicist who has written regularly about smoking, and has faced strongly verified accusations of involvement in actively seeking additional payment in exchange for taking a stance. It's validated by the public statements of Roger Scruton and colleagues. That's arguably about as strong and as relevant as any criticism can be. If you can shorten the 215 word paragraph without removing any of the relevant information, then it may be worth suggesting any minor rewordings here in the sandbox, but I don't agree that there's any concern over the use of space due to this short section in a 5,600 article. However perhaps raise it on the BLP board; invite additional consideration, or be specific about what your concerns are. Marty jar (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The tobacco funding scandal appears to be a long-running issue...I notice it was previously entirely deleted(!), but later restored. I've made a couple of changes to the current edit. One was a quote from the subject's biographer who disliked him being criticised, which lacked relevance; the much more important one was that it was changed to suggest Scruton claimed Guardian journalists stole the leaked letter. Not only does this appear to be immaterial, but it's also not what he says on the link at all! He says it was stolen, and separately that it was published in the Guardian. For reasons of legality and accuracy, a bit of care should be taken here. I felt it would be taken as read that a 'leaked' letter was stolen in some way, but have left in the additional clarification and link anyway.Marty jar (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I fear that you are being a tad disingenuous. The material I added is well sourced and fully relevant and provides important facts, perspective and balance to this issue. The Dooley quote is absolutely pertinent, and springing from it could be another section dealing with the left's disparaging of Scruton during his career (he became a pariah at university etc.) Also, Scruton has claimed on numerous occasions that the email was stolen, surely this should be reflected here. By removing such references you deprive the section of balance and create a distinct impression of biased editing (you risk coming across as not wanting to allow the other side's point of view to be heard). Jprw (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section

No one is above criticism, not even Mr. Scruton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)