Viscount Stansgate

Will Hilary become the 3rd Viscount (and if he renounces it in turn how will the numbering go if it is subsequently taken up)? Jackiespeel 17:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC) The Viscount Stansgate article says it will be his elder brother Stephen 84.9.160.252 13:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question still applies - though a redirect to the relevant page on succession of titles and comment thereon would probably be more appropriate.

See the comment on Tony Benn and talk page - a comment here on Hilary as a fourth generation politician? Jackiespeel 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasties

Can anyone recall another example of a three-generation Cabinet dynasty in the House of Commons? The Peels perhaps? Adam 05:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy Leadership race

Deleted the prediction that party members would vote in the same pattern as CLPs nominated candidates. It's possible they will, but it's just speculation at this stage.Ajwells 13:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Benn was top on 27%, followed by Education Secretary Alan Johnson on 18%, Environment Secretary David Miliband on 17%"

David Milliband did not run for the labour deputy leadership. Could someone find out the right numbers and names and correct this? I can't remember... But I can assure you David Milliband did not run for it ;p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.189.228 (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is to an opinion poll conducted before the contest formally began, at which time the final candidates weren't known, hence Miliband's inclusion. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource

Wikisource has never heard of the guy 83.70.247.123 19:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next generation

It appears that Hilary's niece/Tony's granddaughter #may# get involved in politics. Are there any such examples of five generations of politicians involving peers (excluding 'Hereditary Position X' types)? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Walpoles were a fairly extensive dynasty. A few of the members of parliament from their family were:
Before the removal of the rotten boroughs, it was quite common for political dynasties to pass parliamentary seats between family members. Road Wizard (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were at least five successive generations of Churchills active in politics beyond membership of the Lords:
Also other members have been active including Nicholas Soames, grandson of the most famous Winston, whilst several earlier generations of both the Churchill and Spencer families were also much involved. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hilary Benn/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.
  1. Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates
  2. Switch existing references to use one of the {{Cite}} templates
  3. Requires copy edit for WP:MOS
Keith D (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 10:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 17:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Hilary Benn. 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:

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) 10:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hilary Benn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AlastairJHannaford (talk · contribs) 14:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. There is a litany of spelling and grammatical issues, making it hard to read and detracting from the content.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. On the lead section, it could be shortened to give it greater impact on the reader, as there is some repetition within it. The second paragraph must be re-worked as to be grammatically correct. The third paragraph could be rephrased to allow for it to read with greater ease.
Though not major, the title of the first section (Labour in government) on its own is grammatically poor, and also lacks flow in reading. The last sentence of the second paragraph (referring to Benn's constituency office) should be rephrased to read better.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. This is the case.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Everything is in order.
2c. it contains no original research. I believe this to be the case, as everything appears to be accurately cited.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. I believe this to be the case, as everything appears to be accurately cited and in order.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. This is an entry on a British politician, and his political views had been summed up as "Benn supports the maintenance of a nuclear-armed strategic force by the United Kingdom." While they have been added to, the impression that this article is incomplete still remains.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). The article is to the point.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. It is written in a neutral manner.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. It is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All are in order.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. This is the case.
7. Overall assessment. I am of the view, that while an effort was made to improve the article it still falls short of the criteria.
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hilary_Benn
No tags for this post.