Talk:George Eaton (journalist)

Scruton controversy
--2A02:8084:609E:4800:9DEA:1D0F:5F11:3086 (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC) I removed the newly added section on the Scruton controversy, instead adding the content to the career section. The subject's Wikipedia page is not substantial enough, nor is the controversy significant enough, to justify a stand-alone section. The content of the section required much condensing and improvement in the language. All related references required fixing.

I never added this section, but having read it found it both inaccurate and misleading, not to say defamatory of Sir Roger Scruton. That is, in fact, the whole source of the controversy. I was attempting to correct it when somebody came along and interfered in media res. They have now made a mess of what I attempted to correct. This is sheer vandalism on their part. Vancouveriensis (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Should there not be a separate section? The section that there is now doesn't emphasise enough that Eaton was shown to be a liar, and almost certainly did it for political reasons. Rustygecko (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Homosexuality
I found it interesting that Eaton declared Scruton not only as a rightwinger and racist, but in particular a "homophobe". This is not an aspect of Sir Roger one would normally emphasize if one does not feel personally affected. So I think the question is justified if Eaton felt he had to avenge himself and his "kin". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rheinvolk (talk • contribs) 07:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is a question for Wikipedia actually. You're just speculating, which is not what Wikipedia is for. I've noticed you've got a bit of a tendency to add speculative comments like this to Talk pages in Wikipedia. You might like to consider the policy Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Seaweed (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)