Talk:Andrew Marr

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.141.147 (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

it's just been deleted. Does anybody feel strongly enough to follow the (?weak) consensus above and reinstate it? --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The only problem with its inclusion was the source, but blogs connected with established publications are admissable. It has been mentioned twice in blogs published by the Telegraph here The other reference appears to have been removed very recently, but is still cached by Google here. No doubt the first reference will vanish too. Philip Cross (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The reference to the lovechild of Marr and Times columnist Alice Miles is reinstated - so yes, the consensus above still holds. The existence of the child is now common knowledge, and properly sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.196.217 (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This content has been removed, and should not be reinstated without Verifiable sourcing. WP:BLP is so crystal clear on this that it is not up for debate. The "source" is a blog, with a byline of "of plots rumours and conspiracy" - it fails the test of a reliable source. The other blog linked in this discussion (my.telegraph) is simply a member of the public's blog hosted by the telegraph. I could sign up there and make a post saying that the moon is made of cheese, it doesn't make it WP:V. The 'weak ok' that seems to have been worked out here is based on the line that a media outlet's staffer blog can be used because it might say "the views expressed are not those of the management" - that is not what we have with that, it is just some random posting, and that post wasn't even the source when I removed, it was simply the guido blog that was rejected as a source at the start of this discussion. So to clarify WP:BLP is so clear about what we do that there is no room to move (to the extent that the entire basis for flagged revisions being brought in is to reduce the potential for BLP problems), the content cannot be re-added without verifiable high grade sources (the bigger the statement being added the bigger the source must be). SFC9394 (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the problem with the first part, or the second part of the statement? If the first, I can't see how it doesn't have sufficient sources, although one may question the legal liabilities it would bring to Wikipedia. The second part is a salacious piece of Heat-magazine style "I got there first," to which as an encyclopedia it would be daft to include. But there seem sufficient sources for stating the allegation. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is all slightly mad, isn't it ? The info is here, on the Talk page, excepting the name of the other party involved. It took me all of half a minute to find out what the 'private information' was, names included. Wikipedia is not subject to British jurisdiction as it is located in the USA, there are no legal liabilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.204.120 (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Valid point; as per WP:BLP I have removed the allegation from Trident13's post. Mad or not, this is wikipedia policy, and we can't just choose which policies to respect and which to ignore. SFC9394 (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

How can one provide a "reliable source" on this when it is plainly obvious that all "reliable sources" have been gagged on it? This is clearly a major aspect of the subject. There is clearly a problem with Wikipedia policy when it comes to stories the press refuse to cover, it sacrifices its objectivity to the demands of newspaper editors. Is it not possible to include a comment to the effect of, "it has been claimed..."? MultipleTom (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It was also claimed in October 2010 that a DNA test ruled out Marr as the father. Join the dots here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Very wise actually. Private Eye (#1283, 4-17 March 2011, p.13) specualates Marr needs his annual £600,000 BBC salary for this case and briefly goes over the history of the injunction. They conclude: "The irony is that Marr recently discovered that he hadn't really needed to spend all that money on m'learned friends since there was a lot less to worry about than he had originally feared. Still, how fortunate hecould at least afford the fees!" Naturally, we cannot really use any of this stuff. Philip Cross (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Daily Mail interview

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)

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.

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

• 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)

Hair washing

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)

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)

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)

Hi Philip, thanks for taking the time and diligence to read the section on 'hair'.

Could you help with your suggestion please Philip? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.129.214 (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Marr's children by Jackie Ashley

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)

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)

Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent developments

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)

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)

Fair enough, I suppose the best articles include absolutely everything but not every article needs too. Is this the world documentary series he's undertaking? http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/22/andrew-marr-history-of-the-world . It was mainly for my interest as well as I wondred if there were other programmes available in "The Making of Modern Politics" series. Lexiyh (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

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

I think also narrated Britain from the air Lexiyh (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Erin Pizzey legal issue

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)

Reliable source for the 'other woman'

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)

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)

No tabloids please

Just a reminder that we cannot use tabloids to support controversial material on living people. --John (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for any confusion or upset caused when this was inadvertent;y removed in an edit conflict Kevin McE (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The FT, Express and The Independent all have the same quote from Marr. Just link to one of those to get over the "tabloid" issue. Leaky Caldron 10:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about a self-defensive press release by the subject of the article. There is no rule that we cannot use information read in a tabloid newspaper: don't confuse the publication with the genre. Kevin McE (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that WP:TABLOID is strictly applicable to a direct quote. There is no tabloid journalism as such since a quote is not creative. Leaky Caldron 10:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"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." Find a better source or we cannot use it. --John (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

John and I are both out of play on this one on 3RR grounds. Consensus is clear both here and on my talk page that the quotation is trustworthy and relevant. The reader is not well served by being deprived of Marr's considered response to the situation, and his own quote cannot be defamatory towards him. I would suggest that the original context of the quote, from a middle-market newspaper that happens to be tabloid sized, is the most appropriate context to present it in, but if an editor prefers to source the quote to a publication on larger pages, so be it. Kevin McE (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Your views on WP:BLPSOURCES are noted. I merely enforce it and cannot comment, beyond saying that in cases of doubt regarding dubious sources, material likely to be challenged, and living people, we default to not using it. It seems obvious to me that if this material is easily available in a non-tabloid source, and you wish to include it, you would find the non-tabloid source, bring it here to talk, establish a consensus, then add it to the article. --John (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course you can comment. You might choose not to, but don't claim to be a slave to it, nor to be incapable of recognising that it is open to a variety of interpretations. Regarding the Mail as an unreliable tabloid, suggesting that a text that has been present in the article without objection is "likely to be challenged", and positing Marr's own words as potentially detrimental to his reputation are all interpretation of the policy on your part, and highly questionable interpretation in my opinion, and that of every other person who commented here or at my talk page.

Further, I would ask you to comment on the fact that the comment in question was made in the course of an interview with the Daily Mail. Thus it is only by citing the article arising from that interview that the fuller context can be presented to the reader. In this instance, this citation is surely of greater service to the reader than those third hand recounts from sources that meet your approval, and which are perfectly happy to take information from the Daily Mail. Kevin McE (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I still don't understand how this is a WP:TABLOID issue. Nor am I the only one. However, the DM appears well supported by the FT [2], The Express [3] and The Independent [4], amongst others [5]. Unless I have missed something particularly uniquely smelly about the Daily Mail version. Leaky Caldron 18:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

BBC as a source

Here is a fully compliant source, the BBC [6] 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)

Referenced information being systematically removed

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)

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)

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)

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)

This morning's appearance was Marr's first public appearance since his illness, which was headline news. Today's appearance has been featured in news bulletins. It is intensely relevant to the subject of the article, so we should tell the reader more than the simple fact of the appearance, stripped of context, update and declaration of future plans. I would propose my text, deleted without any meaningful explanation by John: He appeared as a guest on The Andrew Marr Show on 14 April to speak about Margaret Thatcher's legacy, and spoke about the incident and his recovery. Paralysis of the left side of his body was evident, but his speech was unaffected. All of that is easily verified on the link already present. Kevin McE (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

The link includes video. The video clearly shows what my text describes. Kevin McE (talk) 05:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

No, no, no, yes, no and WP:V, in order. --John (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

John Pilger

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:

“ Marr was criticised for some of his on air statements during this period. John Pilger claimed that Marr "rejoiced at the vindication of Blair who, he said, had promised 'to take Baghdad without a bloodbath'" during the second Iraq war in March 2003. ”

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:

“ Pilger has attacked Marr further over an interview with Tony Blair, in which Blair was promoting his memoirs. Pilger is critical towards Marr for not questioning Blair on whether he had colluded with George Bush to invade Iraq and for not bringing up the legality of the invasion. [For formatting reasons I have removed the link to Pilger's website. The original article is John Pilger "The BBC is on Murdoch’s side", New Statesman, 30 September 2010</ref> ”

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)

Accent

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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/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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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) 07:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Socialist Campaign for a Labour Victory and Alliance for Worker's Liberty

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)

Agree with this clarification. Ceoil (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)