Talk:Robert Tombs

History Reclaimed

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, can we discuss this revert of yours? I added the Daily Express because it was explicitily cited in the other sources, and how university professor of history Alan Lester and Carlos Conde Solares, a senior lecturer in Spanish history at Northumbria University who also cited Lester (hence secondary coverage), are undue? I fail to see how outright removal is an improvement, rather than try to improve the section. Davide King (talk) 11:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Davide King. I didn't remove the entire section--only the reception bit. I'm not quite sure where you see the WP:DAILYEXPRESS being cited in the other sources but, even so, I'm not sure why you would directly cite the Daily Express for anything. Especially in a BLP. I'm sure Alan Lester is a credible professor but at the end of the day, this is still a WP:BLOG. Same deal with this source. I'm sure Carlos Conde Solares is qualified but "North East Bylines" is a random website that doesn't even seem to have an editorial team. And, just to top it off, Solares mentions Tombs once. All of this screams UNDUE to me and coatrack-y. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, thanks for your response. Like for Lester, the Daily Express (linked through 'right-wing tabloids') is mentioned through Solares and can be easily not linked through primary source. Again, the section is not only about Tombs but about History Reclaimed, of which Tombs is one of the main editors, so I fail to see how it is "coatrack-y"; additionally, what matters is the reliability of Lester and Solares, which you do not appear to dispute, and I believe that there is a policy that allow us such use if written by two university professors. I think you went too far in removing them. Davide King (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

the section is not only about Tombs but about History Reclaimed, of which Tombs is one of the main editors, so I fail to see how it is "coatrack-y". This is the exact reason why it is coatrack-y. The main WP:TOPIC of this article is about Tombs, not some website he helped create. All of these sources mention Tombs in passing, which shows that History Reclaimed is a tagenitenly related topic to Tombs and it does not deserve too much WEIGHT. If you want to claim Lester and Solares are subject-matter experts, that's fine. But this is still a BLP and, per WP:SPS, we can not use self-published sources in a BLP even if they come from subject-matter experts. So the Lester source is unusable. And I'm not sure if the Solares source is self-published but it's certainly not a high quality source and he mentions Tombs only once in passing. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Tombs appears to be the main figure behind the website, so I do not think it is coatrack-y but you are right that if they are self-published, they cannot be used, even if written by experts, per WP:SPS. To play devil's advocate, Lester is published by Sussex University and I used Solares mainly as secondary coverage of Lester, and "not high-quality" but published by a subject-matter expert is not the same as "self-published", which would preclude us from using it in BLP even if written by an expert. If we are going to discuss the website, which I maintain that is relevant to Tombs as one of—if not the—main figures, we should at least put its reception and the views of two university professors of history, if they are not self-published. Maybe we need some outside input for this because it may be borderline and not as clear cut as you may think; of course, I may well be wrong on this too and can accept it. Davide King (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree with Dr. Swag Lord that the Express has no place in a BLP, but the description of a subject matter expert as publishing a blog is wrong. Authorities in their subjects are considered reliable sources. I'm not sure the whole addition is due, but currently over half of the "History Reclaimed" section is taken up with their own self description. Stating the response to that statement would be due. I saw this due to the posting at RSN. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

So do you agree or disagree that this source is a blog post? Come to think of it, I believe you're correct that we are giving too much weight to their own self description. I would be in favor of removing that line. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Whether it's a blog post is not the question, experts in their field are reliable sources. That's beside the point though, as I'd agree to the removal of the last sentence of the "History Reclaimed" section. That would mean we have no need to balance the self description. As an aside I would also say the paragraph on mass killings in the personal live section should go, it's one third of the entire section that seems undue. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The only issue is that we're dealing with a living person. Per our self-published source policy: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. So it is relevant whether we're dealing with a blog or not. Unless there are any objections, I'll remove the last sentence of the History Reclaimed section. Personally, I'm comfortable with the mass killings part. It was previously under its own header but I moved it into the personal life section. Once this article gets expanded, it won't look undue anymore. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I saw this only now, thank you further discussing this. ActivelyDisinterested, how come did not comment in the RSN? Was it because I was not concise or clear enough, or was it already archived? Anyway, what seems to be missed is that this (Lester) is indeed a blog post but this one, which does cite Lester and makes it due,1 is not and does not appear to be self-published either. While it may not be the best source, I think the self-publishing issue is gone; while it is more about the website than Tombs, I think that it is still relevant for Tombs being one of the main figures (he was the one to publish an article about it in The Times), if not the main editor, especially if Tombs and History Reclaimed promote historical revisionism, and Lester and Solares represent a mainstream or majority view; in my view, this latter point would be enough to overcome any further issue.

Notes

1. My main source for that paragraph is not Lester but Solares, who cited both Lester and the Daily Express, including the mixed reception. While there is no point to directly cite the Daily Express, I think that Lester is fine as a subject matter expert cited by a certainly non-self-published source (Solares). I put Lester to verify quotes and that I did paraphrase and summarize them correctly in that context. Davide King (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that this makes the section due, which means we do need to balance it with Lester and Solares; since the latter cites Lester and is not a blog or self-published, I think the only issue remains that Tombs is mentioned in passing. Since it is a section about the website, and I believe to have showed that Tombs is one of the main figures behind it, if not the main one, I think it remains a weak argument. Davide King (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Since I think the section is due, I am fine with keeping their self-description, with the quote from a non-primary source. Indeed, when I added Lester and Solares, I made all those reasoning already, e.g. that Lester and Solares balanced their self-description and made it due as a section. Here, it was Swag Lord (not me) who added the source that made it due; however, since I think that same source makes the section due, we need to balance it with Lester and Solares, who also makes it due. We cannot have a NPOV section without them; either the section is removed, which does not makes sense in light of new source added, or Lester and Solares should be re-added in respect of NPOV. Davide King (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How is this due, even though Tombs is not mentioned at all, while my additions are not (even though they do at least mention him and are clearly relevant for NPOV)? Not only that but it completely lacks context, as there was no censorship at all. If we are going to keep it, it should probably include this context:

"In January 2022, the 'campaign group' website opposed the "illiberal emphasis on emotional wellbeing" when Reading University cut lines from the Ancient Greek poem 'Types of Women' due references to domestic violence, and other content warnings; the university responded that there was no censorship, as the full text of the poem remained available in full, and that the changed extract "was a sensible academic decision, made for a range of good reasons by an experienced and respected historian."

The more we go on, the least it makes sense to have removed my proposed paragraph. Davide King (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't add that but if the source doesn't mention Tombs at all, feel free to remove it per SYNTH. Davide, not everyone's opinion matters (see WP:ARSEHOLES). You don't see me adding in that the Ramsay Centre supports History Reclaimed, do you? [1] NPOV can be achieved simply by stating simple facts--the who, what, where, when, and why. And I was looking more into it. Solares' expertise is in the history of medieval and early modern Spain [2]. I don't see at all how that's relevant to History Reclaimed. Based on their website, they seem pretty U.K.-oriented. Do you honestly believe a non-notable academic, whose expertise is not particularly relevant to the topic, writing in a random, non-notable online newspaper, which doesn't appear to have an editorial team [3], mentioning the subject of this article (Tombs) a single time, meets our due weight requirement? I respect your commitment to NPOV, Davide. But giving UNDUE weight to something or someone is an NPOV violation itself. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I know that you did not add this, but you did add this which makes it due, and I believe that ActivelyDisinterested agree with me on NPOV; they said the whole section was undue, but you showed it is due by adding that source, so maybe they have reconsidered this?

• "... not everyone's opinion matters (see WP:ARSEHOLES)." Comparing two university professors to that is disingenuous, and that is an essay, not an actual policy.
• "You don't see me adding in that the Ramsay Centre supports History Reclaimed, do you? [4]" Yes, because that would be a primary source about the Ramsay Centre supporting them, while Lester at least got secondary coverage through Solares, so it is not the same thing.
• "NPOV can be achieved simply by stating simple facts--the who, what, where, when, and why." That is clearly not what WP:NPOV is, that sounds more like WP:VERIFY.
  • NPOV is about "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." How is excluding Lester, who was cited by Solares, who also commented on the website, of which Tombs is the main editor, while keeping the self-serving self-description (they are Brexit and right-leaning, not non-partisan as they claim), not in violation of proper balance and NPOV?

It is indeed relevant because the website is promoting historical revisionism about the British Empire and colonialism, on which Solares is appropriate because Lester and Solares agree that History Reclaimed has promoted some Anglo-Saxon exceptionalism, and as an expert of Spain during colonialism Solares shows that is not good history. As I said, the main issue was that it was self-published; Solares was not. I believe all of that is made irrelevant (now that you seem to accept that Solares was not self-published, you turned to dismiss them as experts) by the fact that the website is promoting historical revisionism, while Lester and Solares present a mainstream view. Their expertise seems relevant to colonialism, which the website has attempted to whitewash; did you know that Tombs falsely stated that Gladstone's name had been removed from a building at the University of Liverpool because his father owned slaves, when it was because Gladstone himself unsuccessfully voted against ending slavery in 1833?

• "But giving UNDUE weight to something or someone is an NPOV violation itself." But presenting historical revisionism as mainstream or uncontroversial isn't?

And as I have not added any of that since you reverted me, I am not violating any policy, unless you think I am arguing in bad faith, which I do not think you should do because that is clearly not the case. As much as I find this interesting and respect you for discussing this with me, I do not think that this back-and-forth is leading to anything among us, and it would be better to get some outside voices (ActivelyDisinterested is free to comment on this and whether they still think they agree with me about balance but believe the whole section is undue). Davide King (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I do think you're arguing in good faith (I don't believe I ever implied you're arguing in bad faith). But it seems like you are trying right great wrongs here. What's with the irrelevant-- " you know that Tombs falsely stated that Gladstone's name had been removed from a building at the University of Liverpool because his father owned slaves, when it was because Gladstone himself unsuccessfully voted against ending slavery in 1833?? That's simply a red herring and a BLP violation unless you have a reliable source. Per your request, I won't respond any further. @ActivelyDisinterested, do you think it would be best for us to simply remove the group's self-description and keep a single sentence on the group? That seems like the best compromise to me since we won't be presenting the group in an overtly positive or negative light. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, but I would like to clarify some things. For one, you wrote: "But giving UNDUE weight to something or someone is an NPOV violation itself." I took this to mean you thought I was willingly violating our policies; since you confirmed you do think I am arguing in good faith, I probably took that the wrong way but I truly thought you were accusing me of violating our policies because I was still arguing it was due or relevant, though the fact you then went on to accuse me of trying to right great wrong makes it look unsincere. I am not righting any great wrong, I was simply stating a fact, and that you seem to think Tombs is a mainstream historian, when he does in fact hold revisionist views outside the area of his expertise. As for Gladstone, Tombs himself wrote an article for the Daily Mail arguing that Gladstone's name was removed from a building because his father once owned slaves,1 when it was removed because Gladstone benefited from it and voted against the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.2. I would say Lester and Solares are all more qualified than Tombs about colonialism and racism. If we are going to disguise Tombs' website's historical revisionism about colonialism, which is outside his area of expertise, do not be surprised if I still argue, in full respect of NPOV, to present the views of two experts who have directly commented about it and are more qualified about anti-racism and colonialism than Tombs is. Either we remove the whole section as undue, which at this point is not feasible, or we add back Lester and Solares to respect our NPOV policy. Davide King (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I've not been well so I haven't been able to spend much time on this as I'd like. On the original issue of SPS Vs BLP I believe Dr. Swag Lord is right on policy. It could be an interesting question for RSN as mentioning the website on a BLP then protects the website from rebuttal by SPS, if the website had its own article this would not be the case. We appear to have gone beyond this issue though.
In my opinion the website, and by extension Tombs, appear to be engaged in revisionism. However exceptional claim etc, we need to have high quality sources to state that in wiki voice and I don't believe we have those. I believe that for the moment the self description should be removed. Can I suggest that Davide King make a definitive proposal of what they would like to add, we can then hash out a compromise about the wording and sourcing? ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't feel well, ActivelyDisinterested. I think your proposal is a good idea. I'll remove the self-description for now. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I join Swag Lord in being sorry that you (ActivelyDisinterested) do not feel well, that I hope you get well soon, and that your proposal is indeed a good idea. I would just like to clarify a few things about my proposal. My proposed version does not actually say anything in wiki-voice, and does not mention historical revisionism at all, though it seems we appear to agree that "the website, and by extension Tombs, appear to be engaged in revisionism"; the latter was my argument for why Lester and Solares are not only due but are necessary to respect NPOV. If the reverse was true, we would not even be discussing here. And contrary to Swag Lord's claim, my proposed paragragh does not in any way present ... the group in an overtly ... negative light, it actually says (through Solares as a tertiary source) that the website received a mixed (not negative) response, which is the only thing that is stated in wiki-voice because it does not appear to be controversial, and the Daily Express is also explicitily cited through Solares. Everything else is properly attributed to two experts, and my paragraph is perfectly in line with NPOV because it does include the website's self-description through a secondary source and two scholarly views. This is my proposal:

Tombs is the editor of History Reclaimed, a website created by a "group of anti-woke scholars" that opposes perceived censorship of historical texts in universities, including Nigel Biggar, Zareer Masani, and Andrew Roberts, among others. The website describes itself as "an independent and non-partisan academic organisation ... composed of historians ... dedicated to historical research to expand knowledge and understanding about the fundamental changes surrounding our country."

Reception has been mixed, with right-wing tabloids such as the Daily Express supporting this retaliation by those academics against the perceived wokeism of Black Lives Matter and anti-racist movements. University professor of history Alan Lester commented that while activists may get details wrong, they get the bigger picture right, and Reclaiming History "believe themselves to be marginalised and gagged", despite including at least one CBE. Carlos Conde Solares, a senior lecturer in Spanish history at Northumbria University, wrote that it "purports to defend the positive legacies of colonialism whilst ignoring the contributions to civilisation made by European nations other than Britain."

The bolded part is my proposed addition. Davide King (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Just would like to point out that the entire History Reclaimed section, with Davide's addition, would take up approximately 40% of the entire article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a further reason to expand the article, as you have well-done so far, it is not a good reason to exclude it a priori — either we delete the whole section as undue, which does not seem to be the case, or we add Lester and Solares in line with NPOV. Davide King (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested, I really do hope and wish that you are getting better, as you have not edited since the day you last commented here. DragonflySixtyseven, I see you made an edit to this article, and I think it would good if you could comment on this. Byline Times, one of the sources I used, is being discussed again at WP:RSN and seems to be confirm so far it is fine, and may confirm my proposed edit is due, though I do agree that the article should be further expanded, so that it will not occupy too much space (per Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d's comment above) but I do remain convinced that it is clearly relevant to discuss. Davide King (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if you're still interested in this, and apologies for the very long delay. As it stands I think the details should stand as is. The website is likely to be of little note beyond the articles that mention it's creation. So adding additional details seems undue. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)