Talk:Dominic Sandbrook

Wilson
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)

POV editing
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)


 * 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 However, the accusations appear to have been retracted fairly quickly and were not recorded.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)