Talk:Adam Boulton/Archive 1

"Adam"

Is there a good reason why he is repeatedly chummily referred to by his first name? Unless two people with the same surname are being discussed, encyclopedias don't do that, as a rule. 86.136.250.154 (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

KCL

He is not a member of the KCL council. See here: [1]. --86.148.57.14 (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography

I don't really think he wrote a book this year called Falling of Love: The End of my marriage to Alistair Campbell, and I'm sure that Simon & Garfunkel don't publish books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.152.249.14 (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"He has interviewed every British Prime Minister from Gordon Brown back to Sir Alec Douglas-Home"

Seeing as he was five years old when Home was PM, I find this pretty laughable. Bnynms (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Home died in 1995, so it may be true.--Britannicus (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The way it's phrased implies "sitting prime minister". Bnynms (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

This is not a disagreement as such, but I'm requesting a third opinion because of some recent edits concerning an incident involving this individual. It centres on an interview with Alastair Campbell on Sky News shortly after the general election which became quite heated, and my concern is that recent changes made to the article may not be entirely neutral. I've rewritten it once recently to remove npov edits, but some of these were reinstated. They've since been reversed a couple of times by myself and another user. The page was protected for a week or so due to problems shortly after the incident (which occurred on 10 May) and I did think of submitting this to the news pending changes log, but am not sure whether that is appropriate (besides which I'm not fully up to speed with it yet). So I thought I'd go for a third opinion.

There are other concerns about some of the references used in the version I've reverted to (YouTube footage of the incident, which really should be replaced with something more appropriate like a news article), but I think that may be for another discussion. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. I have removed your request for a Third Opinion from the request list. The 3O page says:

Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can been reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute.

The reason for that is that, as one particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." As an alternative to a Third Opinion, you might consider asking for help at the NPOV Noticeboard or the Content Noticeboard. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No probs. Must admit I haven't got involved in too many of these things. Nicely phrased actually, I must remember that one, no doube it will come in useful one day. I'll open a discussion here, then try the npov noticeboard if I get no joy. I'm really looking for some advice on the best way to approach this. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)