This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dominic Sandbrook article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shropshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Shropshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShropshireWikipedia:WikiProject ShropshireTemplate:WikiProject ShropshireShropshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles
Surely one important point that no reviewer mentions is that this is the first post death of Falkender
All previous books memoirs faced legal onslaught from her
I suspect more to come
Talk to Haines and Donoghue 77.76.73.58 (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are far too many cherry picked quotes in this article to make it seem balanced. Every single authored work is a quasi masterpiece based on the quotes used by favourable journalists. Balance this against the serious accusation that he has been caught out for "apparent plagiarism" (is that a sort of Schroedinger's Cat offence of blatant copying but apparently not blatantly copying? He either did or he didn't, so why the verbal obfuscation?). The article smells of paid editing or someone who either has a conflict of interest or no sense of NPOV. I'd never heard of this person until someone passed me an article he wrote about himself in the UK's worst tabloid (which incidentally was entirely self-congratulating). Note the precedence then on this person. I strongly advise that this article be shredded of all the rose tinted quotes about his published works and get back to hard facts. When an article is this pro subject and uber positive, it stinks of WP:NPOV, WP:OPINION and even WP:OR (because it's all spin to promote the subject). It needs a rewrite because this person is obviously no star if they are plagiarising other writer's work.146.199.128.158 (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, balance is needed in the article. However, the accusations appear to have been retracted fairly quickly and were not recorded. Dominic Sandbrook is still academically recognized and his academic work on 20th century British history is widely respected and influential. The article’s treatment of “apparent plagiarism” is in fact justified. JEBELLES (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.png){kind=small}
