Talk:Brian Haw

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticisms[edit]

I think there should be a section on the many critisms of him. Many people have said that his protest is an eyesore. I've also heard that he's got 7 kids he's obviously not taking care of. He also said he opposed WW2. He's also a Christian fundamentalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.165.41 (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add this info to the article, backed with reliable sources. Jim Michael (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The elder of twins by 25 minutes?[edit]

How is this relevant? PizzaMargherita 16:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not exactly doing any harm, is it? David | Talk 19:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Like every other irrelevant detail, it is diluting relevant information. PizzaMargherita 19:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That rather raises the question of what exactly is relevant. This is a biographical article about Brian Haw, and so his whole life story is relevant, not just what he is doing now. If the article was at Parliament Square anti-war protest then it would be irrelevant to state that he was a twin, but as it is his biography, it is perfectly relevant. David | Talk 08:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying that we should include that he has gray hair, that he likes mashed potatoes, that he took part in a spelling bee when he was 12 and he arrived 26th? I think we have to draw a line somewhere. PizzaMargherita 09:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am delting "25 minutes" as this is completely irrelvant. Details like this do not belong in an article on Wikipedia. [Hicham]
Removed the rest for the same reason. I'm sure I've seen a policy on this but I just realised that WP:TRIVIA is not a valid shortcut. If people start reverting I can dig it up. PizzaMargherita 05:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, here it is Wikipedia:Trivia. PizzaMargherita 05:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically: If you see information that really is "trivia": be bold, remove it. PizzaMargherita 05:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Number of minutes is trivia, but the existence of siblings is relevant to a biography. Jim Michael (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surname[edit]

Is his surname taken or given? He reminds me of Lord Haw Haw, indicted for treason during WWII. - MSTCrow 02:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My life in serious organised crime[edit]

...should be mentioned here I think.

Latest case report[edit]

Director of Public Prosecutions v Haw [2007] EWHC 1931 (Admin) (06 August 2007)

3.The issues raised by the case stated are as follows:
i) Whether the statutory powers available to the Commissioner of Police under section 134 of SOCA can be exercised by a subordinate on his behalf;
ii) Whether the conditions imposed on Mr Haw were ultra vires, or incompatible with Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights ('ECHR'), as unreasonable or insufficiently clear. Ron Barker 12:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

These were external links, but it's getting rather bulky. If there's valid info it should be given in the article and they should be cited as refs. If there's not extra valid info, we probably don't need it as an external link:

Tyrenius 00:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dead baby photo in the State Britain work[edit]

I saw a bit about the State Britain exhibit on the news the other day, and thought I recognised the picture of the dead baby, supposedly "maimed and burnt in missile a attack" (quote from the State Britain article) in it. So I did a little research into it, and found out the photo (that can be seen at the 3rd reference on this very article here) is actually a photo of a little baby boy who died, aged 3 weeks of cardiovascular arrest due to a rare disease called "Harlequin type ichthyosis", at the Pamukkale University Hospital in Denizli, TURKEY! This dead child was nothing to do with the war in Iraq or the "War on Terror" or whatever, he was born to unrelated parents in their early 20's after a normal pregnancy. Here is the source for this of course; http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijd/vol1n1/harlequin.xml It's a case study about the child (be warned though, the pictures are pretty grim). Ryan4314 (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did a little more research with some help (you know who you are ;), here is a close up of the photo in the State Britain exhibit [1]. Obviously it's not the same photo as the one in the case study (although it might be the same baby), but it is quite clearly a Harlequin baby and not the effect of a bomb blast. It's a pity the tag on the child in the photo is only partly exposed and we can't see any writing, then we'd be able to work out what country it was. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You removed Brian Haw London Mayor edit[edit]

why? (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your talk page here, as you also sent this message to my talk page. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unemployed father of seven[edit]

It is absolutely relevant that the article mentions the fact that Haw is an unemployed father of seven. (92.10.198.224 (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

  • For starters, information in Wikipedia must be reliably sourced. Please read WP:RS, thanks. (Note: Other provisions may apply as well.) Jusdafax 21:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This info has been removed as unsourced. It is relevant, and should be readded, backed by a reliable source. There is currently nothing in the article about his personal life or any jobs he has had. The only mention of his family is that his father worked at a bookmakers, and that is unsourced. Jim Michael (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that he's dead there should be some mention of the fact that Haw was an unemployed father of seven living on benefits. He had not worked since the 1980s. (92.7.27.83 (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Why "now that he's dead" exactly? His seven children are now mentioned in the article and a reliable source has been given as a reference. I think you have assumed that he was in receipt of state benefit? Do you have a source for that claim? And where is the source for the "criticism"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article in "The Telegraph" in May 2006 revealed Haw had not worked for twenty years, and was living on benefits. (92.7.27.83 (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Fine, provide the reference with any new text, and I'm sure your edit will not be reverted. Who was criticising him exactly - The Telegraph or one of their many fully-employed comfortably-off readers? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Icke[edit]

What source states that David Icke payed for Haw's treatment? I can see a thread on Icke's official forum that asks for donations to help pay for treatment at the Shen Clinic, but that's hardly the same thing. --88.104.35.41 (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Icke personally paid for all Haw's cancer treatment. (92.7.27.83 (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Source? --88.104.35.41 (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CHAIN SMOKER[edit]

It's important that the illness section should mention that Haw was a heavy cigarette smoker all his life. (92.7.27.83 (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

It's more important that any edit is verified by means of a reliable source. Wikipidia works by means of facts, not by means of "important mentions". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we be sure that the reference currently used to support this (Lahore times) hasn't simply based its info on a revision of this Wikipedia article? Parts of the cited article seem familiar. --88.104.35.41 (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think we can. Unless someone has a contact at that particular organisation who can tell us otherwise, which seems unlikely. The paradox of the accessibility of wikipedia? It also seems stange that there is not even one other single source for this claim. Why should a newspaper in India have a source of information whihc has apparently eluded all of those in the UK? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to that woman who was often at the protest, Haw smoked "at least forty roll-ups a day". Therefore he would definitely count as a chain smoker. (92.10.142.53 (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Employment status[edit]

So in January 2007 "The Telegraph" described thus: "Brian Haw is the unemployed carpenter from Worcestershire who has been protesting outside parliament since June 2001 .." I wonder how fair this description was then, or how relevant it is now? In this article Haw's employment status seems to be important only to those who equate doing something useful with full-time paid employment, or who want to portray Haw as a "worthless loser" or the like. In fact, I'm not really sure how anyone who was employed could successfully mount a 24-hour 7-day protest? I'd be interested to see any lucid argument as to how Haw's employment status is really significant to what he became famous for. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it could be relevant. If there was some source that indicated his unemployed status affected his politics or formed part of his protests. It's worth noting that the source says nothing about whether he was claiming benefits or not. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fully noted. Yes, being unemployed does tend to influence one's politics, I'd say. I just don't see how anyone could have done what he did and also have had "a job". So it's a little absurd to claim that his being unemployed was at all notable (unless one has a right-wing agenda to push). Compared with many people who "do not have a job" it seems to me that Brian Haw was fully self-employed but regretably unwaged. You don't often see "One-man Nation's Conscience" listed down the Job Centre, do you? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non Sequitur in Personal Life Section[edit]

The sentence "As an evangelical Christian, Haw visited Northern Ireland during The Troubles as well as the Killing Fields of Cambodia" is a non sequitur. His status as an evangelical Christian is irrelevant to his visits to both Northern Ireland and Cambodia and vice versa. If both pieces of information are relevant to the article, each should get its own sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LCassamas (talk • contribs) 17:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be right, it does look like a slight non sequitur. I think the intended meaning was probably "When he was an evangelical Christian, Haw visited .." But how do we know that the two were unconnected? I would have thought that if these two things happened at the same time in Haw's life they may very well have been connected. I don't think we have any source which supports this either way. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling I may have been responsible for the wording. The profile of Haw imply that he saw his visits as a religious duty (see [2]), so it is perhaps not so much of a non sequitur as has been feared. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Grace Tucker[edit]

Hi all. I'm a new editor, and I'm working on an article about Barbara Grace Tucker - a UK activist who is still holding an ongoing vigil in Parliament Square. I added a note about her contribution to the page yesterday, but think maybe it needs a reference or a link to a page about her.

I've been trying to get an article about Barbara started, but its being deleted on the basis of needing more referencing or (possibly?) more neutral content. Can anyone drop me a line on my user page to help, or have a look and edit the draft in my sandbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novak123 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have made some comments on your Talk Page. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Brian Haw. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Brian Haw. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brian Haw. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Banksy Reference[edit]

In the "Parliament Square Protests" section it states the work by Banksy is of two soldiers "painting over a peace sign", but the work shows two soldiers painting a peace sign.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brian_Haw&oldid=1213612995"