Talk:Andrew Gilligan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the BBC WikiProject.
Tasks for WikiProject BBC: Here are some tasks you can do: Merge: Suggested merge of Criticism of the BBC into BBC controversies (Discuss) Cleanup: Newsnight, BBC Prime, BBC Two Northern Ireland Expand: All 10 start-class BBC articles with Top importance - see here, BBC Lifestyle Stubs: Stub-Class BBC articles Update: BBC Portal NPOV: Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Other: Ensure all our articles have the talk page template added to their talk pages. Add free use images for biographical articles. Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes. Get our new task force on BBC Sitcoms going. Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC.

As discussed on the Hutton Inquiry page, I toned down (deleted) some of my earlier comments (backing Gilligan) in the interests of neutrality following a suggestion by Pete/Psb21. The remainder is I think factually correct and reasonably balanced. Washington irving 21:43, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yeah I was probably a little over-dramatic in my comments on the Hutton Inquiry talk page... I think I must be instinctively more suspicious by anon Ip editors than logged-in people. I think the sentence you removed was the only one where it was Wikipedia offering an opinion... which we try to avoid doing at all times :-). The rest of it looks good to me... thanks for all the additions! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:06, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You were right. When I looked back, it was just that sentence that stood out.Washington irving 09:33, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What about Gilligan's career post-BBC?

What about Gilligan's career post-BBC? I realise he is most famous (/infamous) for the Today report and aftermath. (Maybe he wont't have an entry without it.) But, as an entry on Andrew Gilligan, does it need to touch on what he has done since? (Apologies for any break in Wikipedia rules - this is my first contribution). --bentdavid 18:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions some details, such as his Spectator work and Evening Standard post with Routemaster articles. It could possibly go into more detail. (Incidentally I am glad that it's not original research for me to talk about Gilligan's love for public transport - I can remember him on the top deck of a Routemaster hired to go down to London when we were both at Cambridge, and pressing the bell twice then saying "I've always wanted to do that!". Fortunately he referred to his interest in the Hutton Inquiry so there's an independent source) David | Talk 20:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this statement should be added -

To be fair to Andrew Gilligan it should be pointed out that the claims made in his first bbc broadcast have subsequently been shown to be entirely accurate and true and this has been admitted by the Labour Government.

Without this there must be some suspicion that Tony Blair's propaganda team are writing this wiki.

None of the claims Gilligan made in his broadcast have been shown to be true. Show me wherever this has been shown. I'm removing this rubbish. This wiki is not for your opinion to be reported as fact. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Tell me any part of Andrew Gilligans broadcast which has been shown to be not true!

There is no evidence that the government (the politicians) ever had reported to them any concerns over the 45 minute "well sourced piece of intelligence". Gilligan reported that they had been told it was wrong. His report was entirely untrue. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Beckett reopened the controversy over the Government's dossier about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction when she admitted yesterday that ministers had realised before the invasion the claim that they could be deployed in 45 minutes was probably wrong. Daily Telegraph.

[edit] Gilligan's track record

I seem to remember the Hutton inquiry heard evidence that Gilligan was rather prone to sloppy journalism before the Kelly affair. I also remember reading in Private Eye other instances of a cavalier approach to truth by him. I will try and find some sources on this. 82.69.28.55 22:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)