Talk:Andy Burnham

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've raised this at

WP:BLPSOURCES.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Andy Burnham gives his side of the argument here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The other issues are

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:BLP article. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This edit was reverted because it has clear issues with

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)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

[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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 29 May 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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)[reply]

"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...

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100716015417/http://www.ukmusic.org:80/events/122-andy-burnham-and-charlie-mccreevy-speak-at-uk-musics-first-creators-conference to http://www.ukmusic.org/events/122-andy-burnham-and-charlie-mccreevy-speak-at-uk-musics-first-creators-conference

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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. —

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Did you both to read Ian's comment made at 1030 on 30th December? ----Snowded ^TALK 10:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I said much the same in response to John zealously templating my talk page :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 10:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better zeal than stupidity and incompetence though I think. --John (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well done Ian, yours was the correct action in responding to the challenged material. --John (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100705100723/http://andy4leader.com/about/ to http://andy4leader.com/about
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Tougher%2Bthan%2Bhe%2Bappears%3B%2BAndy%2BBurnham%2Btells%2BIan%2BHernon%2Bthat%2Bpolitics...-a0236089358

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.

• 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) 17:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following the series of different IP edits claiming Burnham's job is "King of the North", which have led to the article being protected, I have added the accurate and neutral account that Burnham's common nickname appears to be "King of the North", and why, in the lead - with 4 reliable mainstream sources, including ones that explain why and those that just use it as shorthand, i.e. showing its common usage. As well as covering it, hopefully this will restore stability. Kingsif (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been pointed out in 2009, but I don't think this was possible. Although now Labour does accept 14 year olds, as they said back then, it seems that you had to be 15 to join in 1984- and at the very least, I've not found any examples of anyone else who did. And because the 1984 miners' strike actually extended into March 1985, it seems far more likely that he joined Labour towards the end of the strike, after he turned 15. The reason I'm bringing it up again when no resolution was reached originally is because I found this contradictory source which is from the June 2011 edition of Third Way. The interviewer, McCloughry, says he joined at 15, and as it was an interview and not just a factbox (like the Liverpool Echo article had), if he had been wrong, Burnham would presumably correct him, but he didn't, implying he was right. So 15 definitely seems like the more accurate age! Now, there is also a second citation further down the page, which comes from the Telegraph. However, because this article is from 2015, and doesn't say where they got the information from, it's definitely possible that the author of that article just got the claim off of Wikipedia, since it had been there for several years, so I think it's mistaken.

But I know this makes it a bit complicated, and I'm not very good at Wikipedia. So I think it needs editing, by someone else! I think at the very least, we should remove explicit mention of "14," since 15 seems more accurate and all we really know for sure is that it was because of the miners' strike. I could be wrong, so just let me know what you think. Nothing bad meant by this! :) 81.111.129.203 (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 months later and it is a source of personal pride that I have finally got proper proof that Burnham was 15, as I had landed on! End of his maiden speech in 2001, says it himself. ^[1] Editing the page now. 81.111.129.203 (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was he not born in Aintree Hospital, which is in Fazakerley? 82.28.78.99 (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Think he was born at home, Mumsnet Q&A, it's the message at 12:12:53.

"I was born at home, but I'll leave it to you to judge what effect that had on me!"

81.111.129.203 (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]