Jump to content

Talk:Andrew Marr: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 64: Line 64:
::<blockquote>Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully.</blockquote>
::<blockquote>Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully.</blockquote>
::Which, but the last sentence might suggest entries on the ''Daily Telegraph'' site such as [http://my.telegraph.co.uk/shaft120/blog/2009/02/15/andrew_marrs_love_child this] and [http://my.telegraph.co.uk/tim_hedges/blog/2008/12/13/uk_bbc_ed_stourton this] are sufficient for verifiability. But can the Tim Hedges blog entry (the second citation) be dismissed on the basis that the author is peddling opinion of the 'liberal conspiracy' kind? [[User:Philip Cross|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross|talk]]) 12:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
::Which, but the last sentence might suggest entries on the ''Daily Telegraph'' site such as [http://my.telegraph.co.uk/shaft120/blog/2009/02/15/andrew_marrs_love_child this] and [http://my.telegraph.co.uk/tim_hedges/blog/2008/12/13/uk_bbc_ed_stourton this] are sufficient for verifiability. But can the Tim Hedges blog entry (the second citation) be dismissed on the basis that the author is peddling opinion of the 'liberal conspiracy' kind? [[User:Philip Cross|Philip Cross]] ([[User talk:Philip Cross|talk]]) 12:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

To answer the above question - yes, using a Telegraph blog as a source certainly seems to be within the spirit and the letter of WP. It would be a pity if widely followed and reliable blogs such as www.order-order.com need to be "laundered" by mainstream media before being cited as sources - but even if we are to stick to that rule, the Telegraph blogs justify the inclusion of Marr's extramarital child in his biographical entry.


==Trivia==
==Trivia==

Revision as of 16:16, 19 April 2009

WikiProject iconJournalism
WikiProject iconThis 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.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Re: edit to Trivia - burqa

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 [1], where it is spelt "burqa". Soobrickay 16:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

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)[reply]

Is the screenshot I uploaded as a replacement to that image any better? Wikiwoohoo 12:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only War and Peace

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Source for Bias Quote

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)[reply]



The article states "before gaining appointment as BBC political editor in _May 2000_", why are we interested in his political "bias" on dates before this. Newspapers in the UK are known for _not_ being politically neutral in any way.

If he displays bias during his time at the BBC (a publicly funded broadcaster) then this deserves attention. We need not be surprised if a writer at the guardian or the observer demonstrated left of centre views. Perhaps we need 2 sections, 1 for politics and 1 for bias?


Japanscot (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


in particular this sentence is at best hugely erroneous and almost certainly disingenuous "Whilst writing his column in The Guardian newspaper, Marr expressed a number of political views"

a writer at the _guardian_ expressed _political_ views. This is entirely unsurprising and needs deleting.

Japanscot (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Telegraph

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).[reply]

I agree. That's not trivia. That's career information. User:Green01 3:30, 07 Feb. 2007 (UTC).

Injunction and allegations regarding personal life

Is it acceptable to include this information in his page or do we need to wait until the mainstream media report it? A Story You Won't Get from the BBC, Guardian or The Times - The Secret of Three of Westminster's Media Gate-keepers

We Need to wait until the story is reported by a reliable source. If you look at this page you'll see that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. The allegations may well be true but until they are reported in such a way to meet the standards for inclusion then they can't be added to the page. --RicDod (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's darned convenient for those involved, given that the story is about the duplicity of the priesthood of what Wikipedia naively deems to be "reliable sources" Wimstead (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia regards Private Eye as an unreliable source too, but the comments cited from The Independent are presumably allowable. Philip Cross (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I am tempted to keep this material in the article merely to irritate passing socially conservative hacks who are unable to touch Marr on this 'scandal', it seems valid to remove on the basis of WP policy regarding blogs, like that of Staines, which are unconnected with traditional media. However, on the reliable sources page we find the following:

Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully.

Which, but the last sentence might suggest entries on the Daily Telegraph site such as this and this are sufficient for verifiability. But can the Tim Hedges blog entry (the second citation) be dismissed on the basis that the author is peddling opinion of the 'liberal conspiracy' kind? Philip Cross (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the above question - yes, using a Telegraph blog as a source certainly seems to be within the spirit and the letter of WP. It would be a pity if widely followed and reliable blogs such as www.order-order.com need to be "laundered" by mainstream media before being cited as sources - but even if we are to stick to that rule, the Telegraph blogs justify the inclusion of Marr's extramarital child in his biographical entry.

Trivia

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.

  • 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 Marr, Andrew (2004). My Trade: A short history of British Journalism. Macmillan. p. 257.)

--TS 16:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]