Talk:Andy Burnham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Religious beliefs[edit]

In an LBC interview on 22 July 2015, Andy stated that he was brought up a Catholic, but now doesn't do God. He identifies as an Agnostic (I would call him an Atheist, but this isn't the place for this debate). See the interview here. The question comes in at around 24 minutes, with Andy's answer a minute or so later: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdilqTK0ixw

Offspring[edit]

In the Telgraph[1] interview cited he refers to "my eldest son" attending his wedding, but the article and all sources on the web refer to Burnham and Van Heel having one son and two daughters. Is this information now inaccurate or is Burnham being forgetful? Philip Cross 14:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Cambridge[edit]

In the "categories", Andy Burnham is claimed by Fitzwilliam College. Cambridge, But that's not mentioned in the main article.Ausseagull (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Even on his personal website's 'About me' page, http://www.andyburnham.org/about.asp, notes he went to Fitzwilliam, Cambridge - Where has this myth about Brunel to study Media come from? Instead I have changed this back - he studied English anyway! (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.73.14 (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! Ausseagull (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What class degree did he get? 86.149.134.65 (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Smears[edit]

Burnham claimed to be aware of alleged telephone conversations between Shami Chakrabarti and David Davis. How can this be so?--Streona (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not well written and very biased. Needs to be rewritten:

OK then how about "If the "Minister of Culture" claims to know what other people are saying in a private telephone conversation, he is either present in the room of one of them, has access to telephone intercepts of political opponents or lying." I think we can discount the first possibility. Either of the other possibilities makes one despair of any culture that Burnham is responsible for promoting.--Streona (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Smear scandal[edit]

In June 2008 he was forced to apologise to Shami Chakrabarti after she threatened to sue him for libel for smearing her.[1][2][3]

Chakrabarti, the well known and highly regarded director of Liberty, alleges that Burnham defamed her in his article and made insinuations about her relationship with the then Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, implying that it was unusual and improper. In her letter she states:

"I am writing in relation to your recent article in the ironically titled Progress magazine.

"In that article you set out to smear my dealings with the former Shadow Home Secretary.

"I must say that I find this behaviour curious, coming as it does from a Cabinet Minister, let alone someone with a partner and family of his own.

"By your comments you debase not only a great office of state but the vital debate about fundamental rights and freedoms in this country.

"Indeed you seem reluctant to engage in that debate except in this tawdry fashion. I look forward to your written apology as I'm sure does Mrs Davis. If on the other hand you choose to continue down the path of innuendo and attempted character assassination, you will find that the privileged legal protection of the parliament chamber does not extend to slurs made in the wider public domain."

Burnham's smear tactics left the director of Liberty 'distraught' and caused grave offence to Mrs Davis. Burnham's excuse that his comments were taken out of context were undermined by the revelation that there had been an organised whispering campaign by the Labour party against Chakrabati both in the precincts of Westminster and hints dropped to the tabloid press by Labour spin doctors and some MP's intimating that her relationship with Davis is improper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesedwardsmith (talkcontribs) 04:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

References

"Joined Labour Party aged 14"?[edit]

I checked the Labour Party website and under the terms and conditions prospective members are obliged to sign the statement that they are 15 years or over. How can Burnham have been only 14 ?--Streona (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This would mean that he did not join during the Miners Strike at all, but is merely trying to establish some kind of street cred..--Streona (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't join at 14. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.168.147 (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A Labour politician lying on his CV? Say it isn't so!--Streona (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The rules on the Labour website are the current ones, you need to know what they were in 1984. I think in the past the minimum age for joining was lower, not sure how long it's been 15. Haldraper (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


Andrew BurnhamAndy Burnham — Burnham is almost always referred to as "Andy" rather than "Andrew". (official website, Telegraph, BBC, Mirror, Independent, Guardian) 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Support He is even called "Andy" in some formal contexts (e.g., in Privy Council minutes). -Rrius (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Sources support "Andy" as most common first name. Rejectwater (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article in the news today[edit]

This is in the Daily Mail today. The edit being referred to is here, and is the only recent edit to this article by User talk:194.60.38.10, which is registered to the Houses of Parliament.

I added "citation needed" to this statement: "He also ignored and suppressed information regarding the standards within the NHS as did his predecessor Alan Johnson." which may also have WP:NPOV issues.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The claim seems to be based on this Daily Telegraph story on 7 February 2013. Donald Berwick and Brian Jarman reportedly expressed concerns to Andy Burnham about the Mid Staffs NHS Trust. The claim that Burnham "ignored and suppressed information regarding the standards within the NHS as did his predecessor Alan Johnson" is not in the sourcing given, and looks rather like putting a POV spin on what the sourcing said. It implies that Burnham and Johnson acted in bad faith. If this goes into the article, it should stick closely to what the sourcing says.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I removed some of the critical stuff last week I think, probably the same sort of unreferenced POV material - but with an edit summary that suggested I was simply removing the clear POV stuff and that some of the criticism might need to be added back. I've not had time to look at the material to do that myself yet as I'm far to busy with the day job. Given that it's similar stuff to that which I removed the edit itself strikes me as within policy guidelines.
I wonder if there's a case for asking for partial protection here just now - the unsourced criticism seems to be coming back quite regularly and at least with signed in editors it's easier to engage in meaningful dialogue with them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I've raised this at WP:BLPN. It is reported that Donald Berwick and Brian Jarman expressed concerns. The problem is the allegation that there was a cover-up (Burnhamgate, anyone?) which goes beyond what the sourcing says. Also, the Daily Mail has an issue with WP:BLPSOURCES.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Sounds similar to the political points made in the last week or so where Burnham has been blamed for the entire thing. Looks like it's simply political positioning. It might be worth trying to write a paragraph framing it in those sorts of terms - Burnham has been accused of this, that and the other but has responded by saying this, that and the other. Trouble is that this can become very complex to write and the meaning gets lost (and a whole pile of "she said that I said that she said" as well). On the other hand, no mention of the recent fall out is probably leaving a bit of a hole in the article in many respects. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
To add, this seems to be the edit which first introduced the material to the project - using a reference to a Comment is Free piece in the Guardian. User:Intuitive1 doesn't appear to be a particularly frequent user of the project and has no particular history in editing political articles as far as I can see. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Andy Burnham gives his side of the argument here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
And, on 10 February in the Guardian as well! The headline on the Torygraph article looks awfully like spin btw - I'm really not sure the report would back up either the headline or the deck. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
So, as I've reverted yet another edit which pushes the one POV on this, let's see if we can get some form of agreement on how we might word something here. The issue is significant I think and Burnham was at Health when the first issues with Mid Staffs became public. Whether this goes in the political controversy section is another question, but anyway, how about something like:
Burnham was Secretary of State for Health immediately after the Stafford Hospital scandal began, having taken over from Alan Johnson in June 2009. Burnham initiated the first independent inquiry into care provided by Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust (when?). The generally critical inquiry report was published on 24 February 2010 at which point Burnham agreed to a further independent inquiry of the commissioning, supervisory and regulatory bodies for Foundation Trusts. In June of 2010 the coalition government announced a public enquiry would take place, chaired by Robert Francis QC. This reported in February 2013. The report did not criticise Burnham or his policies.Guardian report
Burnham has been criticised by some (whom?) for not initiating a public inquiry himself. In February of 2013 it was claimed that Burnham had received warnings about high death rates at Stafford.Telegraph article Prime Minister David Cameron and others has criticised Burnham for.. (what exactly?), although Burnham has argued strongly that the accusations are political attacks and an attempt to smear the reputation of the Labour government.Guradian article, Guardian article
That's probably too weasily, but it at least attempts some balance. It also needs someone who knows more about it to fine tune the factual details and so on. Anyone want to take that on and develop it? I will freely admit that's probably a bit rubbish so criticise it all you want!! Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The other issues are WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:RECENTISM. This area may not be worth more than a brief mention for these reasons. Phrases like "Burnham has been criticised[who?]" are unsatisfactory, and need to be clarified to explain who is doing the criticising.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The recentism point is entirely fair and I agree - there's probably too much there. The bracketed comments were meant for someone else to fill in the details of btw - not to include! I don't know precisely who (other than Cameron and general Tory briefing) are being critical of him for example. That's where I need someone who knows the story better than I do! Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that Blue Square Thing referred to the Telegraph as the "Torygraph." I would hesitate to describe an editor who does such as being unbiased...92.5.151.98 (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I also refer to the Guardian as the Granuaid at times. And it would be difficult at least to suggest that Torygraph isn't a commonly used (or accurate) term which simply acknowledges the potential bias of the source. Now, if you can find evidence of biased edits - actual edits to actual articles that I've made - then go ahead and call me out on them. The edits I've made to this article have been on NPOV grounds and have called for balance and, if necessary, the reinstatement of some critical content - I just don't have time to devote to the article to do that myself just now - middle of August I can probably give it the hours it needs, but not until then. I have made some suggestion son this talk page. They include comments that outline the criticisms made of Burnham. Maybe you'd like to work on those and improve them as they're a bit lame to say the least. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk page overrun with Burnham staff and stooges[edit]

Fascinating to see all these Burnham staff and stooges still trying to cover it up (because who else would try to censor a story fitting WP:RS?). You wretched weasels, people died at Stafford because this jerk did nothing. (And yes, the Tories have done only a little better; but sod the party politics in either direction, those who left people to die of thirst need to be brought to justice). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.89.95 (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. My cheque from Andy Burnham's office must have got lost in the post, and so most likely did User:Blue Square Thing's. This is a good example of attempting to import a Westminster media feud to a Wikipedia article, which is written by a different set of rules, namely WP:BLP. While Andy Burnham may have been told about problems with the mortality rate at some NHS trusts, the claim that he did a Richard Nixon and deliberately covered it up for his own political advantage is POV spin by his political opponents.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, assuming some form of good faith would probably be a good idea. Criticism is all very well and whathaveyou but, as I think my editing record will show, balance and reliable sourcing is what we're looking for. I don't actually know the Stafford story very well at all - it's generally been background noise to me, hence the lack of detail in my suggestions above (please add the detail I'm asking for to those btw). My understanding was that Francis' report didn't blame Burnham or his policies did it? And that he wasn't in post that long before the initial reports (that Straw had commisioned I think?) came in? Or for that long afterwards either was he? You can argue that the 3 year public inquiry wasn't the quickest method of cutting to the chase either - and that's nowt to do with Burnham is it?
I do know that there's been plenty of party political posturing that tries to shift blame anywhere that the media will try and take it. That's what we really need to try and cut through if we can - a tricky process I admit. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
If allegations are made in reputable sources they, if noteworthy, should be included along with any response from Burnham. It is odd not to mention them at all. Rsloch (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
My start of a suggestion of a way of balancing it is above - in italics. It's not great but could be taken on by someone and used as a starting point. There are also, of course, pretty big recentism issues as it happens to have been in the press the last fortnight. There are loads of times when what appears to be a significant story goes away after a few days and never seems to take on the relevance it once appeared to have. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Politicised Revisionism Allegations[edit]

Is it true that Andy Burnhams' staff have been editing this page, removing negative references to him? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2371938/How-Shadow-Health-Secretarys-staff-editing-Wikipedia-remove-negative-references-role-NHS-scandal.html Can we say therefore that those responsible for the last few edits are his staff? The Mail says the edits were made from IP addresses at the House of Commons.....any response? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.245.111 (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If you read the Telegraph article about this yesterday you'd know that Burnham has released a statement that says that someone in his office corrected inaccuracies or something along those lines. I've no doubt that the Daily Mail said that as well, although you can never tell with the Mail exactly what they're going to say (fwiw the Telegraph is generally considered a WP:RS). I believe, fwiw, that the Telegraph article says that one edit was made from the HoC. I believe that to have been the case - the diff has been pointed out above.
Given that I also removed similar information on at least two occasions over the last few days then I can let you know, absolutely categorically, that it would be very wrong indeed to say that those responsible for the "last few edits" are his staff - mainly on the grounds, that as a quick look on a popular web search engine would confirm, I don't work for him and, for what it's worth, didn't even vote for his party in the last General Election. As I've already explained above, I am, however, looking for a balanced and well sourced article - given the political spin which has occurred over the last few days that's certainly not what we had in the article. I've made a (pretty poor) proposal above with the aim of providing some balance. It needs lots of work from someone who's more familiar with the history of the whole affair than I am. Please feel free to step in and help out - just look for WP:RS please to back up anything which might be considered even vaguely contentious about the issue - this is, afterall, a WP:BLP article. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Too many self-serving inaccuracies. The page needs to be taken down and one with some facts put up instead82.132.237.233 (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I've made a suggestion for a (pretty poor) way of trying to get some sourced and balanced stuff into the article. Please feel free to work on it - you'll find it above - I'm not shy of people criticising it and promise to not be offended if you can improve it (but, please, keep it balanced and source anything contentious reliably).
Now, if you think there are so many "inaccuracies" perhaps you'd like to start by pointing out exactly what is inaccurate and how it might be corrected? I'm assuming you're thinking that there are a number of verifiable facts which are incorrect? Such as? Thanks - listing them here is fine. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

This edit was reverted because it has clear issues with WP:BALASPS. It is common in BLP articles of politicians to trawl through news coverage to create criticism sections that fail WP:NPOV. Neither of these criticisms has long term notability.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Semiprotection[edit]

I have temporarily semiprotected this page to prevent disruption, please do not use the article, or this talk page as a venue to try to communicate with Mr. Burnham, or as a means to further a political agenda.--kelapstick(bainuu) 18:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2015[edit]

Amendment from the Stafford Hospital Scandal page: Burnham launched an inquiry report, which was published on 24 February 2010. The report made 18 local and national recommendations, including that the regulator, Monitor, de-authorise the Foundation Trust. Burnham also launched a further inquiry into foundation hospital trusts generally. 88.97.17.99 (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Amortias (T)(C) 19:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2015[edit]

[Where is a section on what he did at Anfield with the Hillsborough disaster 2009 and 2014?] 82.43.139.232 (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as your request is unclear - there does not seem to have ever been such a section.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2015[edit]

I'm new to editing wikipedia but spotted three possible errors in the following material about mid staffs on the wiki entry for Andy Burnham. Are any established users able to amend please? My reliable sources are: 1.Full Fact article : https://fullfact.org/factchecks/francis_many_deaths_unnecessarily_at_mid_staffs-28805 2. Report of the Keogh Mortality Review: http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/bruce-keogh-review/Documents/outcomes/keogh-review-final-report.pdf 3. Francis Enquiry report: http://www.midstaffspublicinquiry.com/

Existing text says: "As Health Secretary, Burnham ignored repeated requests for a public enquiry into unusually high mortality rates at Mid Staffordshire Hospital, including three independent reports into what became known as the Stafford Hospital scandal. Burnham and his predecessor as Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, rejected 81 requests to examine the high rate of deaths at the hospital. 2,800 of which arose after alarms were first sounded.[23]"

Three problems: - the 2800 refers to excess deaths at the 14 Trusts covered by the Keogh Mortality review, not Mid Staffs. The Telegraph article referenced does not say there were 2800 deaths at Mid Staffs. - The full fact article above explains that the figures refer to an above average mortality ratio, so it is not directly possible to count 'avoidable deaths' - Less clear on editorial policy on my third point, but I think it is a value judgement or "quote" by the Telegraph to suggest that Mr Burnham 'ignored' requests - this is not a fact. The Telegraph report is also unclear on who submitted the 81 requests, but I don't expect we can edit wikipedia for that.

Suggested edit: "While Burnham was Health Secretary there were repeated requests for a public enquiry into unusually high mortality rates at Mid Staffordshire Hospital, including three independent reports into what became known as the Stafford Hospital scandal. Reports claimed that Burnham and his predecessor as Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, had rejected 81 requests to examine the high rate of deaths at the hospital [existing ref 23]. Between 2005 and 2008 a standard mortality model suggested there were between 400 and 1200 more deaths at Mid Staffs than predicted, but this should not be interpreted as avoidable deaths as the only way to assess that is to review an individual's case notes [my ref 1]. The Francis Enquiry was launched by his successor as Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, in June 2010 [my ref 3]. [note: removing the ref to 2800 deaths, supported by my ref 2] Jbatet1710 (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Done I've made some of the suggested revisions. I've left the 2800 figure in but clarified that it covered 14 NHS trusts and was an estimate which the final inquiry thought potentially "misleading". I also added the Full Fact link to the Stafford Hospital scandal article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtellett (talkcontribs) 22:16, 29 May 2015

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2015[edit]

At the end of the 'In Opposition' section of Andy Burnham MP's page states that it was claimed that he claims £17000 in expenses on a property in London, despite owning another very near. Andy Burnham has written an official statement explaining this which in the interests of impartiality should be included as well. The official statement from Andy Burnham I have written below as well as a link taking you directly to said statement:

"The rules set by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, Andy Burnham has to have additional accommodation in London to fulfill his parliamentary duties. Andy Burnham was forced into the current arrangement when the rules changed and this has been fully open and transparent since 2012. He did not seek the current arrangement and he wishes to stress that he does not make any money from it. A full explanation of how it arose follows.

1. 10 years ago, Andy Burnham decided to take out a second mortgage to buy a flat in London. Amongst other things, this saved a considerable amount of money for the taxpayer as it allowed him to reduce his accommodation claims.

2. The Commons only ever funded the 'interest' part of the mortgage. Andy Burnham funded the repayment part as well as another mortgage on his main home in Leigh.

3. Early in the last Parliament, the expenses rules changed to stop claims against mortgages. Andy Burnham did not want to leave his flat but had no choice. He moved to another flat in the same area.

4. At that time, MPs that had claimed against mortgages were asked to pay a lump sum to the Commons in respect of any "indirect subsidy" that may have accrued from being helped to take out a mortgage on a property that had increased in value. Andy Burnham did this in instalments over the last Parliament.

5. At the point when the lump sum was paid, it was determined that any direct or indirect public subsidy in the property had been fully redeemed. The requirement to clear any possibility of subsidy was introduced precisely to protect MPs from the kind of allegations that have been made.

6. When Andy Burnham left his flat, he continued to have a mortgage on it. He has therefore had to rent it out. The rental income received only covers the costs, which include: service charge; letting/management fee; and maintenance. No money is made from renting out the flat."

Link to above quote: http://andyburnhammp.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/statement-on-accomodation-expenses_25.html

I believe that at the end of the 'In Opposition' part of Andy Burnham's page should be written something along the lines of the following: "However Burnham later issued a statement on his blog explaining that he had been forced to move out of his original flat due to changes in the rules of IPSA (Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority) and is still paying off the mortgage himself, has made no money from the flat and has paid IPSA back any money it was due" 86.158.100.251 (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Done Spokesperson's explanation addedDtellett (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2015[edit]

Aintree, Lancashire, England 144.32.240.58 (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Liverpool area stopped being in Lancashire in April 1974 due to the Local Government Act 1972. It could be argued that it was in Lancashire at the time of his birth in 1970, but articles tend to give where it is now.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

"Place of birth" description is incorrect[edit]

"Burnham was born in Old Roan in Aintree, Liverpool,"

Aintree is close to Liverpool but is NOT within the city and therefore should NOT be described a such.

Also in the details box where his date (7 January 1970) and place of birth are given it says "Aintree, Merseyside". This is incorrect because 'Mersyside' did not come into being until 4 years after his birth, i.e. 1st April 1974. Therefore because Aintree wasn't and still isn't part of Liverpool, his place of birth can only be truthfully described as follows... "Old Roan, Aintree, Lancashire, England, UK" ...Simples...

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Andy Burnham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"no tabloids on BLPs please"[edit]

Re this edit; Instead of saying "no tabloids on BLPs please", it would be more useful to find a broadsheet source and add it to the article. It is not even remotely controversial that Andy Burnham announced that he was standing for the Labour leadership on 13 May 2015.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I put the mirror one back in as it included a statement of policy which I think is legitimate. We could subsittitue a broadsheet. But I'm not aware of a rigid 'no tabloid;s view and both the Mirror and the Mail are accepted as sources other than for polemic ----Snowded TALK 10:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Re this edit: There is nothing much wrong with the Mirror article saying that Andy Burnham stood for the Labour leadership on 13 May 2015. However, to keep John and the other citation purists happy, I replaced it with The Independent as it is obviously much truer when it appears in a broadsheet newspaper. WP:BLPSOURCES is intended to prevent people from adding statements like "X repeatedly sodomises ferrets" sourced to a tabloid newspaper or blog. It is not intended to imply that everything in a tabloid newspaper is wrong.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Well done. The onus is on editors wanting to include material to ensure that it is properly sourced. We can't use tabloids on a BLP per WP:BLPSOURCES. --John (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The policy excludes Taboid Journalism. Per multiple discussions at WP:RS both the Mail and the Mirror are considered reliable sources for a body of material. They do engage in tabloid journalism but its not the be all and end all of what they do. The broadsheets aren;t immune either with the Telegraph and the Times guilty of aspects of that around the refugee crisis and others. So you can probably exclude the Sun automatically, but not the Mirror. Please follow the policy not your extended interpretation of it. I'm happy to use the Independent as a better source for his being elected but it is perfectly reasonable to use the Mirror to support his stated policy. ----Snowded TALK 10:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
You're wrong, and it is important for your continued editing here that you know you're wrong. --John (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
John, we've been through this on a number of occasions (by which I mean more than zero, which is a number). WP:BLPSOURCES is intended to raise a red flag for controversial statements sourced only to tabloids, rather than to imply that everything in a tabloid is wrong. As BLPSOURCES says, "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources" which is the case here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I am glad you appear to more or less understand this policy. This will really help in ensuring we don't see any repetition of this situation. --John (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hang on, two experienced editors disagree with you and explain why. Your response is to attempt to patronise them and assert that you were right all along? There isn't a situation here that should not be repeated. You have been humoured on one source, that is it ----Snowded TALK 10:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Er no, it's just you. Ian is able to correctly read "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources". I'm not sure why this is proving difficult for you. --John (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Did you both to read Ian's comment made at 1030 on 30th December? ----Snowded TALK 10:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I said much the same in response to John zealously templating my talk page :-) ----Snowded TALK 10:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Better zeal than stupidity and incompetence though I think. --John (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Well at least zeal and be interpreted positively while accusations of stupidity and incompetence could not. :-) Better to avoid both ----Snowded TALK 10:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
It's all getting a bit personal here. I added the cite from The Independent thinking that it would keep everyone happy. Although I am not a snob about citations, broadsheet newspapers are generally better than red top tabloids.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Well done Ian, yours was the correct action in responding to the challenged material. --John (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Ian also says its OK to use the Mirror here. If you can find a broadsheet fine. Bit please try to be a little less aggressive. The point has been made that tabloid journalism which is not permitted per policy is not the same thing as denying all sources from newspapers like the Mirror and Mail. If you look at debates on WP:RS you will see that view is supported by the community. Please try and deal with the argument not just your interpretation ----Snowded TALK 11:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say this. In my view, the Mirror has a reasonably good track record of avoiding nonsense and libel, unlike the Sun and the Mail. It is also not in any dispute that Andy Burnham announced that he was standing for the Labour leadership on 13 May 2015. There is plenty of sourcing for this, e.g. BBC News here, but I went for The Independent.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
My point related to the other statements was that you were taking the position that the Mirror is not excluded per se. In this case I think it is important to have material that goes beyond the simply fact that he stood. I'm also not inclined to indulge an editor who slams templates on my page and refused to enter into discussion when you make a reasonable point in return. Either way before this storm in a teacup gets to be a typhoon I've posted something seeking clarification. ----Snowded TALK 11:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLPSOURCES doesn't really apply to situations where (a) the statement isn't controversial and (b) you can take your pick of sources such as BBC, CNN, broadsheets etc to source it. For the historians of Wikipedia, WP:BLPSOURCES was introduced after the Daily Mail made claims about the private life of Philip Mould which were (a) wrong, (b) potentially libellous) and (c) sourced only to the Daily Mail. Note the greyed out edits at [2]. This is a long way from the situation with Andy Burnham.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree, but John doesn't so I have sought clarification at the BLP talk page. If the policy is to exclude all tabloid journals then it needs to say that. At the moment it covers tabloid journalism which is not unknown in the broadsheets although thankfully rare. ----Snowded TALK 11:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

As always, the real issue is "celebrity gossip" material for which no source, in my experience, is actually "reliable." The policy only refers to style of writing, not to printed format (heck - "tabloid journalism" is rife on the unprinted Internet!) Collect (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Should article mention his nickname "Spineless Andy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.46.128 (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect information on Shadow Cabinet[edit]

The article states he continued as Shadow Home Secretary through to 2017, however this is incorrect, he was succeeded by Diane Abbott in 2016 following his resignation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemoralora (talkcontribs) 18:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Andy Burnham. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)