Talk:Chris Patten

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 [year] 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)


 * " 'criminal who would be condemned for a thousand generations' (Chinese: 千古罪人) "


 * "Criminal" is still not the best word to convey the meaning in the chinese phrase - "wrongdoer" or "culprit" are even more appropriate. The word "criminal" implies a person who has been formally convicted of some offences while the Chinese phrase refers to historical figures who are viewed highly critically by history. "Criminal" is also too heavy a word to use in the context of this particular event in history. CW (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2011 (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 (Talk 21:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion below. There is disagreement regarding the most appropriate title for this article, but the arguments presented here from our basic naming principles are strong, and a contrary consensus is not clearly indicated. - GTBacchus(talk) 23:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Chris Patten, Baron Patten of Barnes → — 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)
 * Note to clsing admin and others: the article was moved in the course of the move discussion - it is now at Christopher Patten, Baron Patten of Barnes, but the move request remains for a move to Chris Patten.--Kotniski (talk) 18:26, 22 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, in my view too, but in the completely opposite direction to yours, I suspect... On merits then, which is the better title? (I suppose Lord Patten of Barnes might also be to some people's tastes.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, setting aside that we both disagree with current policy to some degree (although in different directions), doesn't it come to down the question of whether or not he is retired? That was your argument for the shorter form, but since he isn't retired, isn't the longer form the easy choice?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I don't think the word "retired" was inserted into that guideline with any particular thought as to exactly what it means (and there's certainly no reason why we should be bound by it). I think he's about as retired as the other prominent politicians to whom we give common names without adding peerage titles. Given that the shorter form is more common, recognizable and concise (see the criteria in WP:AT), no less precise, and no less consistent (each alternative is consistent with a particular set of other articles), are there any similar advantages in using the longer form which would outweigh those?--Kotniski (talk) 09:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The long form is consistent with community consensus and thus policy, the short form is not. I know you don't agree with community consensus and policy, but I don't think the right route for you to pursue in changing it would be to move an article to a name in contravention of policy.  Lord Patten doesn't meet any of the narrow exceptions to policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this mean you don't have any advantages to outweigh the ones I've listed? What is your basis for saying the short form is "not consistent with community consensus"? Isn't the point of this discussion to try to reach such consensus? (And certainly Policy would appear to support the shorter name, since the policy is WP:Article titles, and the shorter form wins on the criteria listed there.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea from that the long form is consistent with community consensus. After these issues were chewed over at some length at WP:NCROY there seemed to be no consensus. PatGallacher (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus is represented by the guideline at WP:NCROY. The conversation you are referring to did not result in there being any consensus to change the guideline.  That's very far from there being no consensus on the naming convention, which holds firmly.  Basically, there are two people who want to change the guideline, and that's that.  It should therefore be followed until sufficiently persuasive arguments (which so far are entirely lacking) to change it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that sums the situation up very fairly - the guideline as it was clearly did not have consensus (it didn't even make consistent sense); it was changed to give a descriptive reflection of current practice, but there is no indication that there is any overall consensus at the present time as to how to treat these articles. In any case, guidelines can have exceptions. Therefore we deal with each case on its merits - can we please hear some arguments (as opposed to wikilawyering) as to why this article should have the long form of the title?--Kotniski (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're going to insult me, I don't see any reason to continue this conversation. Per your original suggestion, I'll move the article now to Chrisotopher Patten, Baron Patten of Barnes - this addresses your concern about the mixed level of formality, while keeping the article consistent with longstanding and nearly universally agreed upon practice as well as the guideline.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to insult you, I don't think. However, rather out of order to move an article to your preferred name when the move discussion is still in progress (and in which at the moment, if I understand Pat's view correctly, you're outnumbered 3-1, with no substantial arguments yet having been presented for your position). --Kotniski (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support move to Chris Patten, the name by which he is almost universally known per Common name. The long form, with the title, is not used at all outside formal settings, such as the House of Lords. 62.25.109.195 (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This move makes not sense to me whatsoever. The principle of naming is "most common name" WP:NAME, which says "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.". The most common name is "Chris Patten" or perhaps "Lord Patten" - he's a very well known politician here in the UK, and his prominence came when he was plain "Chris Patten" and he's not ceased to be referred to. But let's try looking at hard evidence. As for "consensus", WP:NCROY is a guideline, it does not trump the general naming conventions and certainly not the consensus on this page. Indeed such things by their nature tend to be poor ways of working out the best for an article as they tend to be more concerned with consistency then "most common" and tend to be written by people more interested in thing like peerages in general, than in the individual's significance.. Patten is NOT notable for being a peer, he's notable for being an ex-tory minister, and governor general of Hong Kong, in which roles the media referred to him as "Chris Patten". No one in politics is ever called "Baron anything". This title is certainly correct in the formal sense, we are not Burke's Peerage, and under the "formal name" argument, we'd move Bill Clinton to "William Jefferson Clinton". Jimbo, please reconsider. There's no consensus here for this, and your rare intervention is strange.--Scott Mac 23:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Google - Chris Patten 185,000 hits, Lord Patten 30,300, Baron Patten 8,710.
 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

favourite food
Someone should add the fact that Patten is that he is a connisseur of egg tarts onto this page. I am a violinist (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. --88.67.124.101 (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Work for Lockheed Martin UK
The CV and picture in ref. 8 concerning work for Lockheed Martin UK are inconsistent with the ones presented in Chris Patten's Wikipedia article. It seems the person really working for Lockheed Martin UK is Lord John Patten and not Chris Patten... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.156.226 (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed statement on election
Removed this statement.


 * Ending up, the PRC did bow to pressure and after the handover, an increasing portion of seats in the Legco would be directly elected

The number of directly elected seats in Legco was fixed by the Basic Law and had been negotiated before Patten took office by Annex II of the Basic Law of HK (http://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/annex_2.html) which was adopted before Patten took office. The changes that Patten made concerned the method of election of the functional constituencies and those were reverted after 1997.

08:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Sri Lanka
Fail to understand why this is relevant to the subject, it must be one of hundred of quotes that Patten must have made criticising stuff any reason why this is notable to him. MilborneOne (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Charity section pretty thin
The only thing mentioned in the Charity section is his brief tenure as president of Medical Aid for Palestinians. Unless we have other examples of Patten's involvement in other charities, then I propose this be moved to a subsection of Post-governorship. Scarletfire2112 (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hong Kong
Isn't Patten notable primarily as a former governor of Hong Kong? It's odd that this subject doesn't get mentioned until the middle of the second paragraph. To give him as "Lord Patten of Barnes" in the flag makes it sound as if we are still living under the Tudor dynasty. Tasty love salad (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
This article says that Chris Patten was "the son of a charming but fairly unsuccessful music publisher". Is describing him as "charming" really N.P.O.V.?Vorbee (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Attendance in the Lords
He has not voted since 2019 according to The Public Whip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.100.251.67 (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Why is the Jimmy Saville scandal included?
There does not appear to be any reason to mention the Jimmy Saville scandal in the BBC Chairmanship section. Are there any accusations that Patten was complicit in a cover-up, or did he say anything, or take or fail to take an action that was significant? If so, there is no mention here. I would suggest that this subsection be removed. Unless someone has anything to add to make it relevant to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.214.27 (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

University intake for medicine
Shortage of university places given to pupils from private schools for medicine 82.28.67.31 (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)