I question (A) the notability of this person in a general purpose encyclopedia, and (B) NPOV. Phrases like "published ... to critical acclaim" read like press releases or publicity blurbs and not neutral POV articles. Editing it to read "some critics acclaimed it, and other critics dismissed / criticized it" which would be both more accurate and more neutral still wouldn't get at the question of whether or not Mr. Booker is "notable". For instance, is he a "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" or "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)" or has he "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field"? -- LQ 16:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not question the notability of the person, given his extensive career and apparent critical status, but I do question whether it is necessary to list every one of his publications. It may be more sensible to detail just the ones he is best known for, for example The Neophiliacs: A Study of the Revolution in English Life In The Fifties and Sixties and The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories. -- Stratman07 (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The disputed assertion that white asbestos is chemically identical to talcum powder"

I propose reverting the edit which changed the phrase from "false assertion" to "disputed assertion" in the above sentence. There are no reasonable grounds on which Booker's claim that white asbestos is chemically identical to talcum powder could be considered true, so this edit is a watering down of the truth, rather than a clarification. The chemical formula for talc is H2Mg3(SiO3)4 or Mg3Si4O10(OH)2. The chemical formula for chrysotile, the primary ingredient of white asbestos, is Mg3(Si2O5)(OH)4. They are definitively and demonstrably not identical. To say that talc is chemical identical to chrysotile is as inaccurate as saying that Hydrogen Peroxide (H202) is chemically identical to water (H20), a statement which I hope we can all agree is not simply "disputed" but false. 86.163.241.163 (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This interpretation is too literal. When something is expresses in a way that makes it possible to interpret it as absurd, then maybe it's something wrong with the interpretation. Maybe a more sensible strategy for the leftist smear machine would be to try not to be too obvious?--83.108.21.155 (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The most cursory glance at his writings would confirm that Christopher Booker isn't a professional scientist. He is however a professional journalist, and if he can't clearly express what he means on fairly elementary scientific issue, that's entirely his responsibility and it is not our job to second guess him. If he's issued some sort of clarification or retraction, feel free to include it. However, an equally cursory glance reveals that Booker believes many things that are patently absurd, or at least claims he does. Finally, linking to a crazed (and tenuously related, at best) conspiracy theory article isn't the best way to put forward your case, especially as the implication is that the academic discipline of chemistry, at high school-level, is a constituent in a 'leftist smear machine'. Please think about the impression that may create, even to those who might otherwise be sympathetic to your viewpoint.FrFintonStack (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated deletion by "Defence of the Realm" of Criticism section within this article

"Defence of the Realm" has repeatedly deleted the entire section on criticisms of Booker's work. Defence of the Realm has claimed that these criticisms are "libelous", but they are merely reports of facts sourced from mainstream publications, including the Guardian newspaper and the UK government's Health and Safety Executive. Unless the user can show that these statements are untrue or defamatory, I can see no basis for removing them.86.157.92.127 (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section deleted again without discussion, 28/12/08 - reversion again necessary

86.159.138.195 (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page.

WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment	(Rated Stub-Class)	BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WPBiographybiography articles
Biography portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.  Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

WikiProject Journalism	(Rated Stub-Class)	JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Journalism portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.