Talk:Michael Booth

Swedish press

Note that the article has been mentioned in this article in Dagens Nyheter along with the sentence "His writing is generally narrow-minded and misinformed". Keep it out of the article, please.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed it again. I'd suggest a temporary semi-protection. The sentence is likely to return. /Julle (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two days. Ought to do it. /Julle (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

A direct translation of the section in question of the article follows for those unable to the read the original. I am fluent.

"But there is a short sentence in the presentation of Michael Booth on the English-speaking wikipedia, which in this situation can be taken into account by those on this team that have because of this had an alarming increase in their blood pressure: "His writing is generally narrow-minded and misinformed" (approximately: That which he writes is narrow-minded and wrong).

Don't come and say that you can't trust Wikipedia. Or?

Promptly, very promptly, did this sentence disappear from the wiki-article directly after this article was published. Our world is forever changing

Now, later, the contemptuous sentence is back. There is apparently a war going on here"

I'm sure you understand, but to be short: Our actions are being watched. Lets try and stop this from turning into a war :) Hentheden (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but reverting condescending, unsourced POV opinions from a BLP article isn't warring, it's housekeeping. I know nothing about Michael Booth. It's of course possible there's been criticism that would merit inclusion in the article, but if so they have to be properly sourced, formulated in another way and be more than one person's opinion. /Julle (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If it keeps being reverted back and forth then it'll look to everyone else like a war, whether or not it actually is. And that calls into question the objectivity of wikipedia, as the article explicitly stated. I'm not criticising you at all, just pointing out the obvious. Hentheden (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

References

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Booth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001080147/http://www.rbooks.co.uk/author.aspx?id=16127 to http://www.rbooks.co.uk/author.aspx?id=16127

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)