| Revision as of 11:23, 15 August 2010 editJimbo Wales (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Founder14,538 edits →Requested move: - he isn't retired← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:48, 15 August 2010 edit undoKotniski (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers40,317 edits →Requested moveNext edit → | ||
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
| ::Either alternative would be in line with NCROY (it provides for not adding peerage titles to retired politicians) - would the other option (plain ]) also be acceptable?--] (]) 09:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC) | ::Either alternative would be in line with NCROY (it provides for not adding peerage titles to retired politicians) - would the other option (plain ]) also be acceptable?--] (]) 09:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::I think you are misreading it, but I think it is wrong anyway. :-) First, I think the idea is that if someone is given a peerage upon actual retirement from politics purely as an honour, it is deemed acceptable not to title the article in accordance with the normal convention. That doesn't apply here, as Lord Patten is perfectly active in the Lords and is not retired at all. Here is some of his recent activity: Second, that part of NCROY is, in my view, confused and wrong anyway.--] (]) 11:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC) | :::I think you are misreading it, but I think it is wrong anyway. :-) First, I think the idea is that if someone is given a peerage upon actual retirement from politics purely as an honour, it is deemed acceptable not to title the article in accordance with the normal convention. That doesn't apply here, as Lord Patten is perfectly active in the Lords and is not retired at all. Here is some of his recent activity: Second, that part of NCROY is, in my view, confused and wrong anyway.--] (]) 11:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Well yes, so do I, but in the completely opposite direction to you, I suspect... On merits then, which is the better title? (The third possibility would be ], or I suppose ] might be to some people's tastes.)--] (]) 11:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:48, 15 August 2010
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Untitled
Wir sind nicht erbärmlich wir sind nur Europäer die vorsichtig geworden sind. Wie soll die EU eine Mitgliedschaft der Türkei verkraften wenn sie nicht einmal mit den neuen und alten EU Ländern fertig wird.
Lord Patten is a Patron of the Tory Reform Group - source www.trg.org.uk and wilkipedia site for Tory Reform Group (TimothyCrockford 15.25, 20 January 2006 (UTC))
- Google auto-translation : "We are not erbaermlich we are only European those became careful. As the European Union is not even to bear a membership of Turkey if it with the new and old European Union countries becomes finished". Pcb21| Pete 19:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Re: The Chinese phrase 千古罪人 .
千古 historic ("thousand history"); 罪人 criminal or sinner. The sense of 千古罪人 is that what Patten did was a crime of historic proportions, and a person who commits such a crime is a 千古罪人. Thus "historic criminal".
"Eternal sinner" is not as accurate. The phrase in English has a heavy religious connotation which is absent from the Chinese 千古罪人. Moreover, 千古, although a long time, is not eternity. Roger Hui 03:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
"in his autobiography John Major claims he was planning to make him Chancellor"
This strikes one as a curious way of putting matters. Surely John Major knows whether he was planning to make Patten Chancellor. "Claims" suggests that the author does not believe this expression of intention. No reason is given for this.
- Always treat political memoirs with scepticism on points like this. Had Patten been made Chancellor, he would have displaced Norman Lamont. Lamont and Major subsequently fell out quite badly (even to the point of having their memoirs come out at the same time). "He only stayed Chancellor because someone else lost their seat" could well be a slightly subtle dig at Lamont. Timrollpickering 21:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Patten did not lose his seat: he failed to win it again. All MPs lose their seats when Parliament is dissolved before a General Election. He wasn't then 'excluded from Parliament' but rather the House of Commons: Major would surely have had him as a Minister again in the House of Lords if this had been something Patten wanted, but the Governorship of Hong Kong needed a strong figure.
- "Lose a seat" is very commonly used in UK politics to describe someone who fails to be re-elected. And in about 1996 there was a lot of speculation in the press of Patten returning to the Commons and some even suspected if he made it back in time he would succeed John Major as party leader. Sending a politician who was less than 50 (in 1992) to the Lords would have killed any real career chances - it's much harder now to appoint Lords as Cabinet Ministers, other than the jobs (sinecures are different) that have to be there (Lord Chancellor and Leader in the Lords). Timrollpickering 21:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
unofficial chinese translation name
I am not sure "柏藤" was ever used. I think the TVB news (or was it the ATV news?) translated it as "柏勤" (Pak Kun) in the few days of speculation before the appointment and official translation was confirmed by the British government. Kommodorekerz 02:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
European Commissioner
There is a distict lack of information about his time as a european commissioner. i remember him to be quite an active commissioner but there seems to be little in the article about that. it isnt even listed in his career at the bottom of the article, while somehow enviroment minister is. how obsurd? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.63.48.253 (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
Title
Shouldn't this one be at plain Chris Patten? He's very well known under that name, and I would suggest hardly known at all as "Baron Patten".--Kotniski (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Biographical material missing?
Judging by the information here and here, there's quite a bit of material missing, including for example his position in as Minister for Education/Science? Then again Minister for Education and Skills doesn't show him or show a gap. I'm confused. Needs checking and updating by someone more familiar with such political figures. FT2 21:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Requested move
 | The request to rename this article to Chris Patten has been carried out.
If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag. |
Chris Patten, Baron Patten of Barnes → Chris Patten — The current title is a weird mixture or formality and informality. It should be either Chris Patten (my choice, as that's the name by which he's best known, and adding "Baron Patten..." - rarely used, as we say "Lord Patten" instead - gains us nothing), or the fully formal Christopher Patten, Baron Patten of Barnes.--Kotniski (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Support Does this have to go through a formal move request? PatGallacher (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Support - Support move to Christopher Patten, Baron Patten of Barnes in line with WP:NCROY.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Either alternative would be in line with NCROY (it provides for not adding peerage titles to retired politicians) - would the other option (plain Chris Patten) also be acceptable?--Kotniski (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are misreading it, but I think it is wrong anyway. :-) First, I think the idea is that if someone is given a peerage upon actual retirement from politics purely as an honour, it is deemed acceptable not to title the article in accordance with the normal convention. That doesn't apply here, as Lord Patten is perfectly active in the Lords and is not retired at all. Here is some of his recent activity: Second, that part of NCROY is, in my view, confused and wrong anyway.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well yes, so do I, but in the completely opposite direction to you, I suspect... On merits then, which is the better title? (The third possibility would be Lord Patten, or I suppose Lord Patten of Barnes might be to some people's tastes.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are misreading it, but I think it is wrong anyway. :-) First, I think the idea is that if someone is given a peerage upon actual retirement from politics purely as an honour, it is deemed acceptable not to title the article in accordance with the normal convention. That doesn't apply here, as Lord Patten is perfectly active in the Lords and is not retired at all. Here is some of his recent activity: Second, that part of NCROY is, in my view, confused and wrong anyway.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Either alternative would be in line with NCROY (it provides for not adding peerage titles to retired politicians) - would the other option (plain Chris Patten) also be acceptable?--Kotniski (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (peerage) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (peerage) articles
- Peerage and Baronetage work group articles
- C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- Unknown-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- C-Class Hong Kong articles
- Mid-importance Hong Kong articles
- WikiProject Hong Kong articles
- C-Class North East England articles
- Mid-importance North East England articles
- C-Class University of Oxford articles
- High-importance University of Oxford articles
- C-Class University of Oxford (colleges) articles
- WikiProject University of Oxford articles
- Requested moves