Talk:Andrew Marr

message: Given it was for his wife, I think it is safe to assume that Marr was referring to women's burqas rather than men's burkas. Also see , where it is spelt "burqa". Soobrickay 16:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: edit to Trivia - burqa 

message: Surely we can find a better photo of a well-renowned British journalist, than a blurry picture of him drinking a cup of coffee?
--Immure 12:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the screenshot I uploaded as a replacement to that image any better? Wikiwoohoo 12:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: On Start the Week it often seems the only book he has read is War and Peace, fifteen times or not. Why are journalists so rarely genuinely cultured? All is second hand opinion Pliny 14:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's just possible he's read a few more books than that, given that he chaired the judging panel for the Samuel Johnson Prize in 2001.  (Have a look at his article on the death of the novel.)  Speaking of the Samuel Johnson Prize, should that fact go in the main section or in Trivia?   Tobelia 08:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Only War and Peace

message: Changed the source to the original article, rather than a christian news portal with secondary speculation. Is there an irony in a news source with an open bias reporting on bias? Feel free to comment Dmanning 01:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for Bias Quote

message: Surely it is more than "trivia" that Marr writes a column in Daily Telegraph. This runs contrary to the impression otherwise given that Marr has perfect Left liberal credentials. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.23.124.81 (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily Telegraph 

message: This can now be mentioned, but the identity of the female journalist or child cannot, as it is not in the Daily Mail interview.  WP:BLPNAME would also become involved with the child.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Daily Mail interview

message: These had been tagged since May, 2008, and someone resists actively removing them so I've moved them all here instead.  Please incorporate in the article if appropriate.  Remember to source any unsourced statements before adding.
*As a teenager Mr Marr wrote and drew a cartoon strip for the punk fanzine Chainsaw.(ref http://www.wrench.org/chainsaw.htm NB: does not confirm the claim, no mention of Marr)
*In one of his books, Andrew Marr claims to have been mistaken for President Vladimir Putin of Russia. He recounts that he was once lost on his way to a briefing at the Kremlin and was spotted by two soldiers, but instead of being arrested for trespassing they looked alarmed and saluted him. Marr also recounts an incident where he was approached by a man in a shop who said, "Here, you look just like that Andrew Marr... you poor bugger."(ref )
*He appeared as himself in the 2005 series of Doctor Who in the episodes "Aliens of London" and "World War Three". He has also appeared in several episodes of The Amazing Mrs Pritchard. 
* He appears in the novel Salmon Fishing in the Yemen by Paul Torday and reads his part in the audiobook. 
* He likes to keep fit, and can often be spotted jogging through open spaces in south-west London such as Richmond Park and Wimbledon Common. 
* Andrew Marr was a member of the Crescents Sports Society at his Cambridge College, Trinity Hall. (ref http://www.jcr.trinhall.cam.ac.uk/societies/crescents.html)
--TS 16:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: Why does Andrew Marr's views on hair washing not merit listing? Throw the blinkers off and have a think and instead of knee jerk reactions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.129.214 (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If this unusual non-practice should be mentioned anywhere it is in an article on the treatment of hair. Trivial sections are discouraged on WP. Philip Cross (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I see you have done so in the article on Hair. This ought to be enough. Readers can find Marr being cited in the article on Hair via 'What links here' in the toolbox. Philip Cross (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hair washing

message: I copied and pasted the names of Marr's children from the Wikipedia entry for Jackie Ashley, but another contributor has now removed these from Marr's entry. I don't want to start an editing war on this but I must make a plea for consistency. If it's not considered relevant to include his children (by Jackie Ashley) in Marr's entry then shouldn't they be removed from Ashley's entry too? I hope we're not making gender distinctions when considering such criteria. And what are Wikipedia's criteria anyway for inclusion of family details and are they being consistently applied in entries for other authors and national journalists? Headhitter (talk) 06:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right: they should be consistently deleted. The policy is in WP:BLPNAME: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects". --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Marr's children by Jackie Ashley 

message: I noticed that he presented a programme on JFK. "JFK: The Making of Modern Politics" http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00w8cjq . I wondered if this was a start of a new series under the title of "The Making of Modern Politics" or just a one off documentary on JFK seeing as it was "50 years since Kennedy's election". I tried to find some press releases, articles or other references that would point towards this becoming a new series but I couldn't see one. Does anyone know if this is the start of something new? Are there any other one off programmes he has made? As the wikipeida article, although detailed doesn't mention everything (notably this). Lexiyh (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have to include everything. Afaik, the last announced major project involving Marr was a history of the world documnetary series. Philip Cross (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Exactly what I was thinking of. Philip Cross (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent developments 

message: This is included in the Legal issues sub-heading under "Personal life", but it ought to sit elsewhere - it doesn't relate to Marr's own personal life.  Headhitter (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erin Pizzey legal issue 

message: No reliable source exists which identifies the woman Marr had an affair with or her underage child. Culmulative evidence online is not admissable for our purposes. I cannot find a source right now, but I had understood the woman had written to the Press Complaints Commission requesting that the child be protected from press intrusion, which has been granted. A usable source is thus probably more than a decade away. Philip Cross (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if a reliable source did name the woman or child involved, it would fail WP:BLPNAME. There is no real need to give either name in this article, as it does not add significant context.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable source for the 'other woman'

message: Here is a fully compliant source, the BBC  for the material being challenged. Together with the original (to some unacceptable) primary source and the other reliable secondary sources reporting this story, there is more than enough verification of the content to warrant inclusion. Further, there is no doubt whatever that this material is relevant to the article. The article subject is a very high profile political journalist who interrogates via various media the most senior political figures in UK politics. His actions in seeking a super injunction to prevent personal revelations is highly notable since it represented a hypocritical stance by him, a public figure, employed by the national broadcaster with responsibility for seeking the truth from elected representatives. There is no remaining BLP issue here. The content is not a bit of social media tittle tattle. It is an admission by the article subject directly relevant to his position of trust as a highly recognised public figure. The continued threats of bans are terrors for children and have no place in Wikipedia. Leaky Caldron 11:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: BBC as a source

message: Marr's appearance on The Marr Show this morning is currently the most read article on bbc.co.uk/news, but one of our administrators is determined to remove referenced information referring it from this page.  He has provided no specific rationale, but has threatened me with a ban instead.  Kevin McE (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The rationale is just above and appears several times on your talk page. You are blocked, but you are not banned. WP:BLP is not one to mess with. --John (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two separate issues here, the privacy injunction and the appearance on The Andrew Marr Show on 14 April, which was his first television appearance since his stroke in January. The article currently says as much as it needs to about the privacy injunction, and a brief mention of his appearance on the BBC show is OK.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: He hasn't been blocked for adding too much detail about the privacy injunction. He's been blocked for a non-existent BLP violation. Whatever else it might be, adding an article subject's own quoted statement is not against BLP. Leaky Caldron 14:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the linked source displays different content for UK users, but the version that I see from the US doesn't provide necessary sourcing for the statement that "Paralysis of the left side of his body was evident, but his speech was unaffected." The source says that Marr described his condition in that fashion (specifically, it states that he "said said the stroke had not impaired his voice or memory but had affected 'the whole left hand side of my body, which is why I'm still not able to walk fluently'"), but there are no indications of third parties making that judgement. --Orlady (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The link includes video.  The video clearly shows what my text describes.  Kevin McE (talk) 05:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And in the video, does someone say "Paralysis of the left side of his body was evident, but his speech was unaffected" or is that your own judgement? --John (talk) 05:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I put it in quote marks to suggest that that was the case? Are we obliged to only use words contained in the source?  Do you specifically want copyvio?  Is anybody likely to challenge the fact?  Or are you simply being obstructive?  Why would you want to keep evident verifiable and relevant truth out of the article? Kevin McE (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, no, yes, no and WP:V, in order. --John (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To echo John's comments: Your interpretation (or mine, or John's) of the evidence in the video is original research that does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Anyway, I see no reason to be tempted to present original research, since the article can state that Marr has said that the stroke affected the left side of his body, but not his voice and memory. --Orlady (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referenced information being systematically removed 

message: I have removed a passage referring to comments by John Pilger which, in my view, are problematic. What follows is probably an over-long self-defence, but Pilger has his defenders.
The deleted passage is on the left in red here. I will break down the deleted passage. The first part is as follows:
In my view, Marr’s comments deserve to be criticised, but we need to careful in how in this is approached. (The clip might be easy to find.) Apart from Media Lens, a small online group, Richard Keeble of the University of Lincoln, and a number of pieces over the years by Pilger, Marr’s comments have received negligible response from traceable sources. The quote has no citation, but far from being a contemporary response ("during this period") to events in the spring of 2003; it comes from the 2010 article cited at the end of the passage. A proper contextualised introduction would be going to too much trouble for a brief comment and what would still be a loose end in the article. 
The only contemporary source by Pilger about Marr's comments dates from August 2003. Entitled "Now we are the Iraq Extremists", it is floating around on several sites which are probably copyvios, but the original source seems to be an issue of the "Daily Mirror". In the article, Pilger makes a valid point it seems to me, but it is not practical to include it. Policy in  WP:PUS states: "in general, any tabloid newspaper, television show, or site, such as The Sun, The Daily Mirror, The Register, and so on, should not be used when a more respected, mainstream source exists." But Pilger's comments are not sustained, as far as I can find, by a less tendentious source. In 2004, the Daily Mirror made a major blunder in reprinting a faked photograph. So that’s that! Marr’s statement was actually made on air during BBC News on Ten on 9 April 2003, not in March, but that is not my immediate concern, and I mention it only to assist other editors. 
The second half is as follows:  Again a check by other editors might just be possible; the interview was broadcast on 1 September 2010. Marr asks about the dodgy dossier, the non-existent WMD and, yes, the legality of the war. Towards the end Marr quips about people suggesting he should not interview Blair but send him to the Hague. It is true that Marr does not make the "collusion with Bush" claim directly, but their interaction as a whole,  suggests that John Pilger's point is shallow. My deletion of the passage relating to comments by Pilger is sustainable. Philip Cross (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: John Pilger

message: According to the article, Marr was born and brought up in Scotland, and educated in Scotland prior to his university studies at Cambridge, and he moved to England for work in his mid-20s.  Yet his speech has, to my ears, no trace of a Scottish accent.  I would describe his accent as standard English Received Pronunciation, but not the very poshest of upper-class English accents.  It is notorious that the Scottish aristocracy (Dukes, clan chieftains and the like) tend to sound exactly like their English counterparts, but this is usually ascribed to their education at Eton and other English boarding schools.  Marr does not seem to have been through this mill, so I am curious to know when, how, and why he acquired his present accent.  Is it a standard product of Scottish private education?  As for the 'why', he can hardly have striven to lose a Scottish accent for professional reasons, as in BBC journalism a Scottish accent is a positive advantage.  Does anyone know if his accent has changed in the course of his TV career, or whether he has ever commented on the subject himself?109.156.125.232 (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accent 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Andrew Marr. 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/20050526004736/http://observer.guardian.co.uk:80/review/story/0,6903,1483979,00.html to http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,1483979,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130113012921/http://www.debretts.com:80/people/biographies/browse/m/6576/Andrew+William.aspx to http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/m/6576/Andrew+William.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Andrew Marr. 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/20071222004640/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20021102/ai_n12650308 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20021102/ai_n12650308
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100011610/gordon-brown-and-the-pills-what-was-andrew-marr-thinking/
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20050526004736/http%3A//observer.guardian.co.uk%3A80/review/story/0%2C6903%2C1483979%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20130113012921/http%3A//www.debretts.com%3A80/people/biographies/browse/m/6576/Andrew%2BWilliam.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have edited this section because it seems determined to prove that Andrew Marr is a communist by making dubious assertions about his past.  The fact that he joined Socialist Campaign for a Labour Victory is presumably provable, but this paragraph went on to claim that SCLV was an affiliate of some international communist group, whereas according to the wikipedia article on it the group was founded by left-leaning Labour Party members.  The paragraph goes on to claim that the SCLV is nowadays called the Alliance for Worker's Liberty.  But the AWL wikipedia article does not confirm that assertion.  The SCLV was founded in 1978.  The article on the AWL says that it developed out of the views of a particular founder's article that was written in 1966.  Then it goes through a complex history and the Alliance for Worker's Liberty is a name that dates from 1990.  I couldn't find a reference to the Socialist Campaign for a Labour victory in the AWL article, so I'm unsure that the claim that the AWL is the new name for the Socialist Campaign.
I may look into that claim and if I can't stand it up, I plan to delete it.  PaulHammond (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with this clarification. Ceoil (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialist Campaign for a Labour Victory and Alliance for Worker's Liberty