Talk:Ben Macintyre

Untitled

I note that Macintyre ended his article by echoing Tony Blair's "We are all middle class now" in saying: "We are all Wikipedists now." This quote might become as infamous as JFK's Ich bin ein Berliner" - Macintyre should of course have said "We are all Wikipedians now." Right? Istartfires 17:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversy?

Should the sub-heading really read "controversy"? I really can't see anything controversial about either the article itself, or the fact that he wrote it. Furthermore, I'm yet to be convinced that it is even encyclopedic. It is only relevant because it is about wikipedia, but that doesn't necessarily make it encyclopedic. (I do think that to not mention the article would be to not "tell the full story", but I'm not sure that it warrants anything more than an external link). Furthermore, the paragraph misconstrues the content of the article. From my reading of the article, it doesn't actually criticise wikipedia. It presents criticisms that have already been made by others, and then places them in context, and to an extent refutes them. If anything, it a reflection on Wiki that puts the open encyclopedia in to some context – neither necessarily positive or negative. I’m not sure how to summarise the content of the article without being POV however. I think the "Controversy" section should either be re-written or be removed. -- Adz|talk 01:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. "Controversy" is just wrong, and I'd fix it except that I agree with you it's not really relevant to the subject of the article. Why is this more remarkable than the rest of what he's written? --Craig Stuntz 14:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it altogether. This is a) not really terribly notable outside of Wikipedia, and b) we shouldn't be referring to ourselves unless we can't avoid it. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have restored it, but as an External link, rather than a paragraph. True, we shouldn't be self referential unnecessarily, but the link itself, as an example of the journalist's work it is appropriate for his article. If you want to replace it with other, better ones, that is fine, but deleting it without replacing it is making the article worse and not better. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think deleting the original section did make the article better because having it under a heading of "controversy" was patently misleading. I have no objection to it as an external link, although I do think that we should try to find a more significant example of his writing (e.g., something about his book) rather than one column which happens to deal with Wikipedia. This article is about Ben Macintyre, not us! --Craig Stuntz 19:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Name

The link gives his name as Ben Macintyre, not Ben MacIntyre. I propose that unless we have references of the other spelling, the article be moved back to that spelling, on the grounds that The Times likely knows what it's journalists' names are.AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Amazon and Barnes and Noble have the same spelling, so I'll move the article. --Craig Stuntz 19:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Replaced

Ben seems to have replaced Rupert Allason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.199.137 (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Macintyre is employed by the "Times" newspaper. This makes us think he is also employed by MI 5 or MI 6 or both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.117.73.34 (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)