Talk:Dominic Sandbrook/Archive 1

Mad as Hell

Nothing about MAD AS HELL yet??? --Christofurio (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean the extraordinary, tenuous, supposed plagiarism section? It needs to go. A single line reference to it, followed by Sandbrook's perfectly plausible refutation (all covered in 2012 Telegraph article), should replace it. This whole article reads like a dubious hatchet job. Bonkers. Such are the hinterlands of Wikipedia... Beethoven74 (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree; that section is much too long. Keri (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Keri (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this article is worth a read, especially when you consider the remarks above, from the now closed account, claiming the alleged plagerism is no more than tenuous http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704132204576136184280902022.(Kiern Moran (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)).

Introduction

Is the beginning part of the article really the correct place to set out his views on the British Empire? Surely it should be biographical, with the main detail about the controversy further down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.241.41.147 (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It needs to be further down and a more general intro added. Beethoven74 (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Keri (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)