Talk:Andrew Roberts, Baron Roberts of Belgravia

"Real" PhD, or honorary doctorate?
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)

It is not true that he took a first class degree either. He was awarded a 2:1. He has repeatedly claimed that he took a first in his publications, to the extent that this has become accepted as the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.197.91.232 (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)

I'm also sceptical of his claims to have taken a first class degree. I was an undergraduate with him at Caius and I am fairly sure he took a second. Given his evident habit of white-washing his own personal history on Wikipedia, this definitely needs checking... — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDavies32 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)

Doctorate: As a former Caian, I receive the college's annual record, "The Caian", which publishes the names of all new freshmen and graduate students going up to the college every year. Roberts is not listed as having enrolled for a PhD at Caius in any of the most recent records (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009). I have not yet received the 2010 copy, so I suppose he could feasibly have enrolled then. However, that would mean he completed a PhD in a highly unlikely 12 months or so. It is of note also that the reference in his Wikipedia entry about his "PhD" links to an article in the Spectator magazine written by - you guessed - the great man himself. Given his evident penchant for puffery and mittyism, and the lack of any trace in "The Caian", I think it is fairly safe to assume that he does not hold a PhD earned through original research. Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, I don't think an article written by himself claiming a PhD is a credible and objective reference in Wikipedia. Perhaps he was awarded an honorary doctorate, but if that is the case, then this should be explicitly mentioned in his Wikipedia entry. Moreover, as DebonairChap alludes, recipients of honorary doctorates do not usually refer to themselves as "Dr", though admittedly it would be entirely in character for Roberts to start doing so.

As for the question about his antics at Cranleigh - I have no idea as I did not know him then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDavies32 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Having done some more research, I found this list of honorary degrees awarded by Cambridge University in 2010 and 2011. Roberts does not appear on the list. I suggest that his claim to have an honorary PhD should be removed from his entry. http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/about/awards-announcements-and-prizes/honorary-degrees/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDavies32 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The plot thickens - I checked the Caius college website - no mention of him graduating here: http://www.cai.cam.ac.uk/forthcominggraduationceremonies

I just emailed the Master of Caius to check and got the following email reply

"I can confirm that Andrew Roberts, who read History from 1982 to 1985, received First Class Honours in his final year and thus was awarded an Honorary Senior Scholarship on leaving.

Sally-Anne Buckle Master's Secretary Gonville and Caius College Cambridge".

I also emailed the Student Registry to find out about the Phd and received a letter from Adam Cooley confirming that Andrew Roberts received a PhD from the University of Cambridge on 22nd January 2011. They also confirmed the class of degee. He received a 2.1 in Historical Tripos part I (1984) and a First in Historical Tripis part II (1985).

Therefore everything he has claimed about his academic record is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.147 (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a great bit of research, Dr Roberts. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

However, the PhD appears to be honorary - not based on research in the framework of a PhD program, followed by presentation of a thesis and an oral examination. Longitude2 (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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


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

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

Actually, if I recall correctly he did a lot of primary research for his biographies of Halifax and Salisbury. Yes, he is not an academic historian, he is one of those pop-historians, however a very prominent one whose work has earned him two prizes and praise from historians such as Michael Burghleigh, Richard Overy, Niall Ferguson, Saul David, David Chandler and Lawrence James. Just because he relies a lot on secondary sources doesn't make him a poor historian. Simon Schama relies on secondary source heavily as well. Is he also not an historian?
 * Simon Schama's speciality is in history of art. His "History of Britain" is not work of "academic" history. Similarly, "brief history of time" by S Hawking will not generate any academic citation from peer reviewed journals. Any history undergraduate student could read articles/books written by academic historians, check the footnotes and appropriate the primary source for their assignment.


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

It is clear that much of his writing lacks rigour in its research, lacks objectivity, and there is no trace of peer review. It is perhaps therefore misleading to refer to him only as a "historian". Perhaps his occupation should be amended as "historian and right-wing propagandist", since this is how he is viewed by the wider public?

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

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

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

Perhaps more relevant would be to discuss the number of times he won the "custard vote" for being the most obnoxious undergraduate at Caius. He won it three years consecutively, which has never been bettered. The prize was to have a barrel of custard dumped over him in front of Caius Gate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.197.91.232 (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Nothing has been noted about his support for the "whiteman's burden" of imperialism for both the UK and the new American Empire. There is a reason he is Bush's favorite historian. Seen TNR - White Man For the Job. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=rgEIzSVsAzw1JcO3DnkA6i%3D%3D
 * Good point. Read the article and added some text and a reference. M OXFYRE  ( contrib ) 01:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

I agree wioth you about Private Eye, which is not a reliable source, but the New Republic article does indeed exist, although it is now behind a paywall. To access it, go here: http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=1100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.133.222 (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to put it back, it should be sourced to the relevant print issue of New Republic and cut down a little to the bare facts. It's only one person's commentary and over-emphasizing it would be undue weight. If you have other similar sources then that could justify a fuller treatment. CIreland (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Some absurd puffery and POV claims had been placed in this entry.
I've pared out the obvious self-advertisements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.159.40 (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

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


 * 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)


 * I have tried to eliminate more spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.173.208 (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

There were useful links removed relevant to the books- and 14 references to clear sources.- Referenced material still beind deleted- by Frederic Smoller. highly respected US journalist and writer, —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned 15:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, accusing someone of being far right isn't libellous. Secondly, even it is, published opinion about Robert will count not matter how much you disagree with it. If someone claim in Gurdian that Robert approve of having sex with donkey, the fact that it was published in a established news media protect it from being deleted. It is upto Robert to sue Guardian and force it to retract.Vapour (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

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

It is not Hari who called him "extremely right wing", that is Roberts' description of himself, in an interview with the Fianncial Times! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.35.253 (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not quite relevant from wikipedia point of view to have both for/against view. Only relevance is to have verified view from media/academia. If someone accused Roberts of being a Maoist, in Fox News, then that reference should not be deleted. You are free to reference any published support for Roberts. Please respect others' freedom to do something likewise. Vapour (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * There is zero requirement that sources be free-to-view online. 2 lines of K  303  12:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The sentence where Roberts claims Hari must have a crush on him and has had an award revoked sounds funnier when I imagine it in a British accent (I'm American). It sounds like the kind of retort I'd hear in a rather cheeky parliamentary debate, not on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.75.54 (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed sentence
I've removed : "At Cranleigh's, he was expelled for drinking, climbing on a roof and cling-filming the lavatories. He went on to a Cambridge crammer to prepare for his Oxbridge exam and was admitted to Cambridge. His 'teenage rebellion' phase now ended, he buckled down to studying.[ref][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)


 * 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)

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

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

Doctor of Philosophy
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)

OBE?
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)

Senior
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)

Wives?
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)
 * 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)

Whitewashing
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)

Is it logical?
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)

External links modified
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)

Criticism from The Economist in the lead to the article
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)


 * 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)