Talk:Paul Foot (journalist)

Hi!

hi you don't know me but me i do.

Im virginie lambinet from france i have been in london during the summer 1999 and i met a boy named shug mc cormack who works for you

I tried to keep on touch with him so would you say him i left a message and tell him my aderss please it would be very nice !

Lambinet virginie 28 rue de monthlery 51200 EPERNAY FRANCE

08.73.18.79.84

[[ == THANK YOU SO MUCH ==]]

Hi Virginie,

Going back seven years, Paul Foot was still alive. Last year, he died. So it's unlikely that Paul Foot can contact your former boy-friend Shug McCormack. Nice idea, though!Phase4 19:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Missing Publication?

There's no mention here of the pamphlet 'Lockerbie: The Flight From Justice'. It was published by Private Eye in 2001 (I think), but my understanding is that Foot was the sole author. Unfortunately my copy is lost forever, so I can't provide many details myself. I wonder if it's not mentioned here specifically because it is a pamphlet, rather than a book, and if so are there other unmentioned works that merit inclusion? Edjack 11:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Privileged Education

This issue keeps being raised in edits to the article.

Foot did not deny the nature of his education, but to say this without using his own or another prominent figures words about him obviously violates NPOV. Richard Ingrams in his Foot biography comments about public school left-wingers referring to their school days in a falsely derogatory way and says that this was true of Foot. I do not have my own copy of the book, but it would make for an interesting contrast to the Chenevix-Trench passage. Philip Cross 19:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

orator

It is worth mentioning that Foot was an exceptional orator. 86.201.150.149 (talk) 07:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

File:PaulFoot.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PaulFoot.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 22 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep Left

Paul Foot did not simply join International Socialism - originally he joined Gerry Healy's Socialist Labour League and was the (very capable) editor of Keep Left, journal of the Healyite Young Socialists. Whilst still editing Keep Left he entered into negotiations with Tony Cliff and IS eventually making a formal break with Healy and joining IS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.238.124 (talk) 08:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Leaving the Eye for the Socialist Worker

I added a citation to a review of Richard Ingrams' My Friend Footy by Patrick Marnham in which Marnham says that Foot was pushed out of the Eye by Ingrams for drawing too much on his contact with the "comrades" (other members of the SWP). While Marnham concedes that Ingrams says nothing about this in the book, as well he might in a memoir of a then recently deceased close friend, I don't think there is a valid reason to remove this material as another editor has done. Marnham worked as a journalist on the Eye for many years, it would appear during the period in question, and is the author of a history of the magazine's first twenty years. His article from The Spectator can thus be considered a reliable source even if certain articles in the same magazine, by Rod Liddle say, cannot. Marnham too is identified as the source of this information, as is the usual practice on WP for potentially contentious material. Philip Cross (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Why draw on a reviewer of the book, when you can draw on the book? That's crazy.

Now, of course, Foot didn't leave the Eye entirely - he continued to contribute throughout this period - but the circumstances are what we seem to be disagreeing about. Marnham's comment was made in a review of Richard Ingram's book, My Friend Footy. Marnham's suggestion that Foot was sacked by Ingrams is not referenced by him. It is not in the book he is reviewing. It is the complete opposite of what Ingrams says. In fact, Ingrams writes:

Paul left the Eye in 1972 to become editor of the Socialist Worker. It was said at the time that he and I had fallen out over political issues. In fact, we very seldom disagreed about such things, the only tension arising from Paul's belief that whenever there was a strike he had to support the union regardless of any rights or wrongs. He also objected to a proposed cover showing his friend, the then pregnant revolutionary Irish nationalist politician Bernardette Devlin, talking to Harold Wilson (Wilson: Why are going to call it Harold? Devlin: Because he's a little bastard). I dropped the cover after Paul's protest but learned later that, typically, Devlin had found the joke quite funny.

There were other things that upset Paul, like the cover featuring the black American revolutionary, Angela Davis. "I just couldn't bear these attacks," he told Harry Thompson later, but added, "It was terrible to leave. Their laughter was so infectious. In many ways it was the most uncomfortable decision I've ever made in my life. I felt I was abandoning Richard. I did feel a sense in which I was deserting my friend. He obviously felt that. He was very shaken."

A more cogent reason for Paul's departure in 1972 was that, like many left-wing Socialists, he had begun to think that there might, after all, be a revolution in Britain......" (My Friend Footy, 67-68)

So, in the words of both Ingrams and Foot, he left, simple as that. Not sacked. Marnham is wrong. Emeraude (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

And a date error - Foot became editor of Socialist Worker' in 1974, not 1972. (The editor until 1974 was Roger Protz.) Emeraude (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ingrams suggests 1972, rather than 1974, for the year when Foot became the editor of Socialist Worker. The ODNB article says he became editor of SW in 1974 after joining in 1972. So I have corrected the article.

On the main point. We are dealing with veracity here, truth is under contention by two people who are in a position to present a credible, perhaps accurate, account. Foot would have had his own reasons for downplaying any clash (avoiding gossip column pieces), and Foot's ongoing connection with the Eye over forty years from 1964 does not mean it would have been completely unbroken. Ingrams comment "It was said at the time that he and I had fallen out over political issues" suggest a dispute over what exactly happened in 1972 is notable and worth including. Ingrams then goes over some of the same then contemporary issues as Marnham. Philip Cross (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, reads much better now. However, as far as I'm aware, Marnham is the only person saying there was a sacking (and that in a review of a book which denies it!) so I'm not sure how much weight should be put on that. Emeraude (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Are there more than two substantive sources online about Foot leaving Private Eye in 1972? I have not seen more than has been cited. Philip Cross (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Paul Foot. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1997%2F07%2F31%2Fnbri31.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130906221044/http://www.bjr.org.uk/data/2000/no4_goodman2 to http://www.bjr.org.uk/data/2000/no4_goodman2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050907130324/http://mp3.lpi.org.uk/ to http://mp3.lpi.org.uk/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://mp3.lpi.org.uk/resistancemp3/ramsey-macdonald-paul-foot.mp3
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://mp3.lpi.org.uk/resistancemp3/ramsey-macdonald-paul-foot2.mp3

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 16 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: in this case, consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Paul Foot (journalist) → Paul Foot – The journalist was an important British journalistic and political figure for several years, the comedian is hardly of comparable importance. PatGallacher (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Calidum 19:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Agree absolutely. It is usual for the most well-known to have an article with just their name and for (whatever) to be for less known cases. That surely applies here, especialy given only two Paul Foot articles exist. Emeraude (talk) 10:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no primary topic by usage according to pageviews, with the comedian generally getting more daily and higher spikes, though that may be due to the recency of the journalist's article's creation. The journalist has about twice as many incoming links. Current news mentions are split between the two, leaning towards the comedian, though this may be due to the fact that the comedian is still living whilst the journalist is not. I think there's a case for the journalist having more long-term significance but I don't think it's strong enough to overcome the similarity in usage. Ralbegen (talk) 10:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose no PT, as so often. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • On reflection, there's no point. Anyone looking for an article on either will get there soon enough just by typing Paul Foot. Emeraude (talk) 09:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see a clearly primary topic from either article. Infact, you could argue that seeing as the journalist has been dead for nearly 15 years, more readers are looking for the currently active comedian. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Completely agree the journalist is the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, no clear primary topic. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The journalist gets only 60% of the page views, and that is nowhere near enough to define a WP:TOPIC. The proposed move would (a) annoy readers looking for the comedian, and (b) guarantee that the page would slowly but surely collect bad incoming links which would be unlikely to get found and fixed, thus degrading the encyclopaedia. Narky Blert (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

First Link (Sources)

Unaware of all (or pretty much any) Wikipedia procedure so do forgive any procedural errors. Just thought I should make those more invested in the article the me aware that the first link doesn't work. It gives an error 404 (at least it does for me.) Due to the short length of the 'further reading' section I usually check out the sources, so would appreciate if anyone could tell me how to access that website. Thanks! Nerdfighter3 (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I take it you mean the first reference. It gives a 403 error, not 404, which means you don't have authority to accesss the source. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is not open source. If you are in the UK you may be able to access it online via your local public library, typically with your library card number. I have amended the ref to show that a subscription is required. Emeraude (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

MI5 dirty tricks campaign

"Former Home Secretary, Merlyn Rees admits MI5 did wage a dirty tricks campaign against the last Labour government. New allegations of security service involvement in a plan to undermine the Wilson government are disclosed in a book out today, Who Framed Colin Wallace, by Paul Foot. It had to be rushed into print to avoid the new Official Secrets Act, which gets royal assent tomorrow."

• "Merlyn Rees on MI5 dirty tricks campaign". bufvc.ac.uk. British Universities Film & Video Council. 10 May 1989. Retrieved 26 April 2023.

<ref name="bufvc/0004900412007">{{cite web |title=Merlyn Rees on MI5 dirty tricks campaign |url=http://bufvc.ac.uk/tvandradio/lbc/index.php/segment/0004900412007 |access-date=26 April 2023 |date=10 May 1989 |website=bufvc.ac.uk |publisher=[[British Universities Film & Video Council]]}}</ref>

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That's junk information. We already know that there was mutual suspicion between Harold Wilson and some cranky officers in MI5. It doesn't prove that Paul Foot was right about anything, because he had an unintentionally comic talent for being wrong. He was wrong about Hanratty (and would never admit it even after Hanratty's guilt became a matter of undeniable physical and judicial fact) and, though not everyone realises it, he was also wrong about the Bridgewater Four, since the Court of Criminal Appeal overturned their convictions purely because the police broke Judges' Rules during questioning and not due to any doubt about their factual guilt, which the court's narrative verdict went out of its way to confirm, stressing the very similar Chapel Farm robbery mearby, in which the defendants' guilt was self-admitted, and stating in regard to the murder of Carl Bridgewater that, at least in respect of Vincent Hickey (though this implicated the others as his known and admitted associates in crime), 'there was sufficient evidence to have enabled a jury rightly directed to convict.' Paul Foot was an arrogant fool, as you would generally expect of a committed upper-class Communist, and was pretty much wrong about everything throughout his entire life. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)