Talk:Hansard

message: ==Untitled==
Yes, by all means edit out repetitions and redundancies, but 'obvious errors'? How 'obvious' does an error have to be before it is excised and lost from the record? Who makes that decision, and who knows about it? In 1907, the Select Committee on Parliamentary Debates recommended that shorthandwriters be employed as permanent staff at Westminster for the express purpose of providing a 'full report which, though not strictly verbatim, is substantially the verbatim report'. The committee had made similar recommendations in 1883 but these had been largely ignored by the reporting contractors. The committee, in recommending a 'full report', rejected both the third-person 'condensed report' then in use and the 'strictly verbatim' or phonographically word-for-word report. But, accepting the editing-out of repetitions and redundancies, what is in Hansard? Is it 'substantially the verbatim report'? What part does poetic license play in the production of the parliamentary record? What kinds of obvious errors, or massive blunders, are edited out, or not even recorded? Most researchers would like to read what was really said, especially in question time. Surely a 'full report which...is substantially the verbatim report', though not always as pretty as a more polished and edited version, would satisfy that need?
SubstantiallyVerbatim? 05:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the above conversation has not been active for some 18 months, readers may like to see the Hansard account of Churchill's speech at . Please note that there may have been some slight differences between the radio address and the speech he delivered to Parliament, but the report should still put the conversation in context. Hansard's editorial remit extends to prepared speeches as well as open debate, but few changes were needed in this particular case - replacing "we" with "they", or omitting it altogether, would be a significant error and would doubtlessly lead to serious questions being asked of the reporter. Rje (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Substantially Verbatim Report"

message: Yes, by all means edit out repetitions and redundancies, but 'obvious errors'? How 'obvious' does an error have to be before it is excised and lost from the record? Who makes that decision, and who knows about it? In 1907, the Select Committee on Parliamentary Debates recommended that shorthandwriters be employed as permanent staff at Westminster for the express purpose of providing a 'full report which, though not strictly verbatim, is substantially the verbatim report'. The committee had made similar recommendations in 1883 but these had been largely ignored by the reporting contractors. The committee, in recommending a 'full report', rejected both the third-person 'condensed report' then in use and the 'strictly verbatim' or phonographically word-for-word report. But, accepting the editing-out of repetitions and redundancies, what is in Hansard? Is it 'substantially the verbatim report'? What part does poetic license play in the production of the parliamentary record? What kinds of obvious errors, or massive blunders, are edited out, or not even recorded? Most researchers would like to read what was really said, especially in question time. Surely a 'full report which...is substantially the verbatim report', though not always as pretty as a more polished and edited version, would satisfy that need?
SubstantiallyVerbatim? 05:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the above conversation has not been active for some 18 months, readers may like to see the Hansard account of Churchill's speech at . Please note that there may have been some slight differences between the radio address and the speech he delivered to Parliament, but the report should still put the conversation in context. Hansard's editorial remit extends to prepared speeches as well as open debate, but few changes were needed in this particular case - replacing "we" with "they", or omitting it altogether, would be a significant error and would doubtlessly lead to serious questions being asked of the reporter. Rje (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Here are a couple of interesting stories about controversies over Hansard:
== McCartney accuses Blair of altering records ==
Mr Hague asked if Mr Blair agreed that "prisoners should not be released early until the organisations to which they belong have substantially decommissioned their weapons?"
Mr Blair replied: "The answer to your question is Yes" and went on to say: "The only organisations that can qualify to take seats in the government of Northern Ireland and can expect the early release of prisoners are those that have given up violence for good."
In the Hansard version, the first part of the response - "The answer to your question is Yes" - was not included. The DUP deputy leader, Mr Peter Robinson said yesterday: "Clearly, someone acting for, or on behalf of the Prime Minister has tampered with the record."
The Irish Times, 20 June, 1998 (not free)  Also Blair cleared of doctoring `Hansard'
== Record altered over who gave paratroops orders ==
The crucial question whether British government ministers took specific decisions on the arrest operation launched by paratroopers on Bloody Sunday arose at the inquiry yesterday, when it heard of an alteration made in 1972 to a passage in Hansard, the official record of proceedings in the Houses of Parliament.
The Irish Times, 28 June 2000 
Ian Cheese (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dodgy Hansard 

message: The crucial question whether British government ministers took specific decisions on the arrest operation launched by paratroopers on Bloody Sunday arose at the inquiry yesterday, when it heard of an alteration made in 1972 to a passage in Hansard, the official record of proceedings in the Houses of Parliament.
The Irish Times, 28 June 2000 
Ian Cheese (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Record altered over who gave paratroops orders 

message: At the end of February Home Office minister Meg Hillier explained the UK ID scheme security system to the Home Affairs Committee. "The National Identity Register, essentially," she said, "will be a secure database; ...hack-proof, not connected to the Internet... not be accessible online; any links with any other agency will be down encrypted links."
Except she didn't, apparently, because by the time the Committee session transcript was published, here, Hillier words had become: "The National Identity Register, essentially, will be a secure database; it will not be accessible online; any links with any other agency will be down encrypted links."
The Register, 9 April 2008 
Ian Cheese (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcript disappears minister's 'hack-proof' ID register claim 

message: I am in Australia and I noticed the times that I watched and listened to parliamentary proceedings that parliamentarians have stated that they would like to have their remarks incorporated into Hansard. Since everything being said in Parliament is recorded into Hansard I like to ask why would parliamentarians asked for the incorporatation of their remarks?--Matthew See (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorporated into Hansard 

message: I suggest that, for its sheer constitutional value alone, a brief mention of Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart, along the lines of this decision made it possible to use Hansard in court to help interpret statutes in case of ambiguity wouldn't be a bad idea.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.50.17 (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pepper v Hart 

message: An image used in this article, File:Ontario Hansard 1953.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ontario Hansard 1953.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion=

message: Over on the David Kelly talk page it says Hansard isn't a reliable Wikipedian source. I am quite frankly puzzled by the reasons given. eg. An editor removed the Hansard quotes as the MP was confused and his (the MPs) opinions don't count, even if he (the MP) is Father of the House - A clear case of opinionating if there ever were one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Kelly_%28weapons_expert%29
Dgharmon (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hansard not a reliable secondary source 

message: Some content has recently been added here () and then reverted. This included new sections and seems (at a glance) to be adequately sourced. In advance of further investigation, I wondered whether the editors concerned would mind shedding a little light on events. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 15:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dec 2013: addition of content 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Cite Hansard#Citation_format.  regarding the format of CS1-style Hansard citations in Wikipedia articles. Thanks. Evad37 [talk] 07:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at   Template talk:Cite Hansard#Citation_format

message: The longest word recorded in Hansard is "antiecclesiasticaldisestablishmentarianism".https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldcross/112/8032603.htm
The second longest is "floccinaucinihilipilification", spoken by Jacob Rees-Mogg on 21 February 2012.HC Deb, 21 February 2012, c787  This is the longest word uttered on the floor of the House of Commons.
"Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis", spoken on the Parliamentary estate by schoolboy Michael Bryan, is not recorded in Hansard.
== External links modified ==
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hansard. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090817171411/http://www.hansard-westminster.co.uk/story.asp to http://www.hansard-westminster.co.uk/story.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131130164509/http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/records_parliament.html to http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/records_parliament.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest word 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hansard. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090817171411/http://www.hansard-westminster.co.uk/story.asp to http://www.hansard-westminster.co.uk/story.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131130164509/http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/records_parliament.html to http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/records_parliament.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Ser. 1, v. 32 (Feb. 1-Mar. 6, 1816) is missing from the official website but is available here. Alekksandr (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing volume

message: What "system"?  Are we to take it that assemblies not listed don't release a record of what's said, or just that they don't name it "Hansard"?  Do major European countries like France and Germany have any similar records of proceedings and speeches?  We are not told!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.84.41 (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: List of assemblies using the system