Talk:Roland Huntford/Archive 1

Sweden
The New Totalitarians is not written from a libertarian point of view. That is a leftist propaganda myth, which is utterly false. The issue of social welfare, for example, is not discussed at all in ideological terms, nor is high taxes. The point of the book is Swedish idiosyncracy in a cultural and historical comparative perspective. The point of departure is thus fundamental tenents of Western political culture, such as rule of law, parliamentary sovereignty and individualism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.76.151 (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Whitewash
Is there anyone out there who thinks the use of the word "whitewashing" is the best possible word for this article? If not, let's change it. (/s/ Bigturtle)

No it Definitely wasn't, 'whitewashing' suggests a cover up, so I slightly altered it but kept the context of the meaning.(rogaw)

Fiennes'Rebuttal
Is there any harm in leaving the paragraph about Fiennes' rebuttal in? It's been there since 2006, and you have overlooked it on several occasions before deciding it should be moved. Huntford is predominantly known as a Scott critic, so the information is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.235.190 (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC) I have just read Captain Scott and a great read it was. I was disgusted with some of the things Roland Huntford said about Scott. He basically proved himself a lier and deciever yet the puplic is duped by his nonsense. I fully support Ranulph Fiennes is his defence of Scott. No doubt Huntford is popular in this day and age. An age dominated by the media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.171.99 (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Vested Interests?
The article on Huntford was well balanced until recently. One user has carried out major edits, adding largely irrelevant pov information. Another user pops up once in a blue moon and carries out edits which totally contradict his past actions.

Huntford is predominantly famous for his attacks on Scott. It is right that this should be apparent within the article, and also right that the main reposte to him is mentioned. What some New York Times reviewer said about him whilst reviewing another book almost a decade ago is irrelevant. comment added on 7 April 2009 by 213.86.235.190 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC).

Balance
Sadly, this biography is a mess. All opinion needs to come out - let's stick to the facts and if new controversial content is added it has to be properly sourced and balanced. One anonymous editor seems to have an axe to grind. I will encourage him/her to add his content on this talk page first to seek consensus on what type of edits will help this article. Please see Biographies of living persons and the links below for more information


 * Neutral point of view (NPOV)
 * Verifiability
 * No original research

-- No Guru (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

--213.86.235.190 (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC) You need to make up your mind. You have shown no consistency when editing this article over the past 18 months. I've also argued for my edits in this page above, without response. This article has generally been stable until people like you decide on a whim to disrupt it.
 * It's pretty basic, really. If you check the links above you will see that the information in an article has to be verifiable, have a neutral point of view and contain no original research. The source you provide does nothing to verify the opinion that you keep inserting into this article. If you persist in this at least attempt to balance your statments for example:

Huntford put forth the point of view that Amundsen's success in reaching the South Pole was abetted by much superior planning, whereas errors by Scott (notably including the reliance on man-hauling instead of sled dogs) ultimately resulted in the death of Scott and his companions.

''Defenders of Scott's actions, notably Ranulph Fiennes, assert that Huntford, who lacks direct experience of Polar travel and man-hauling, is not qualified to draw the conclusions he does on Scott's alleged technical deficiencies. In his book, Fiennes offers a rebuttal of some of Huntford's assertions of Scott's deficiencies''

You see how the above paragraphs are equally weighted in terms of length and provide an overview of both views. Hopefully you will find this (or something like it) to be acceptable. In any event please leave the fact tag and see if somebody can provide a source that Huntford's book had a tremendous impact on public interest in Polar matters -- No Guru (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a reasonable compromise. --213.86.235.190 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 10:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC).

Found link to an interview with Roland Huntford - where does it go? (under which heading)?
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/dec/27/interview-roland-huntford Interview by John Crace. The Guardian, Saturday 27 December 2008] Has some biographical details. RPSM (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)