Jump to content

Talk:Norway Debate/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Conflicting views

Reading this article, I'm not feeling any wiser as to what the conflicting views of the debate was. Exactly what parts of the "general conduct of the war and the government of Neville Chamberlain" was criticised and why? I feel like the article is missing something important. - Kvaks 20:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence that stated Keyes' contributions were later found to be incorrect (etc) - if putting that in then we need to be more specific. Also the main points about his speech was firstly his dramatic appearance and secondly the weight that whatever he said carried (irrelevant of what he actually said!)

Can I ask if anyone has the list of 33 Tory rebels? This is important as after the war, this group had very high prestige in the Conservative party. The list is crucial to understanding the ascendency of one nation conservativsm after the conflict. I believe Macmillan, Eden and Profumo were among the rebels, but I cannot be certain.

Eden wasn't a rebel - he was Secretary of State for the Dominions at the time! Macmillan and Profumo were amongst the rebels and I'll fish out the full list at some point soon. Timrollpickering 01:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The rebels

The list I have is as follows. Feel free to edit this to use the most common form of the name.

33 "official" Conservatives

Note that not all of them were from the One Nation wing of the party.

4 Liberal Nationals

2 National Labour

Also two independents who normally gave support to the government:

  • Daniel Lipson - Independent Conservative MP for Cheltenham.
  • Austin Hopkinson - A rare case of a very successful independent MP. He had taken the National whip until November 1938, though continued to give some support after that.

Timrollpickering 16:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this should go into the article in some form (if we could do it without taking up too much space then that would be good), but it should have a source. Could you give a reference for this list? Andreww 10:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
It was compiled from a mix of sources - mainly Hansard (for names - irritatingly it didn't give party affiliations until very recently); The Times guide to the House of Commons & F. W. S. Craig for affiliations in 1935 (plus by-elections) and "British Political Facts" by David Butler and Anne Sloman for party changes. This may be coming too close to original research to use the list as it stands (although I'm sure there's a book or journal article listing it somewhere, though I wanted my own bash) although as all the allegiances and by-elections are on the relevant pages anyway it is arguably little more than a summation of existing info. Timrollpickering 18:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I certainly do not think that is too close to original research, a policy that should probably be renamed "no original ideas" to clarify the unusual meaning given to the word "research". Anyway, would the following be ok for a footnote to, say, a table? "This list of government rebels was compiled from voting records recorded in Hansard (full reference) with party affiliation taken from Craig (full reference) and Butler and Sloman (British Political Facts, rest of reference)." Andreww 21:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I have just stumbled on this debate after writing James Henderson-Stewart's biography. There are other sources which can be honestly cited. If you have the Times Digital Archive, then the The Times report entitled "Voting Analysed: 33 Conservatives In The Minority", published on page 6 of the edition of Friday, May 10, 1940 will be an adequate source. In addition the book "Your M.P." by "Gracchus" (Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1944), lists it as Division F on pages 95-110. Sam Blacketer 21:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hubert Duggan

Just to note I have changed 'Herbert Duggan' to his correct name 'Hubert Duggan' in the list above. Sam Blacketer 23:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Improvement

This article could use more citations (perhaps cites to specific pages of Hansard?) and some revisions. It might read better to take the debate in textual paragraphs rather than bulleted ones. Following the debate section could be a new section talking about how the activities outside the House, as a result of the debate, led to Chamberlain's fall. I would do it myself but my sources are limited, outside of Nicolson's diary which I have now cited. (I can add more from the diary on an aftermath section.) Kablammo (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that the following is trivial, and I am reminded of a Monty Python sketch on details of airline pilots' uniform being depicted incorrectly; nonetheless I record it to (I hope) avert any future 'correction'.
Relatively early versions of this article talk of Keyes appearing in full dress uniform of Admiral of the Fleet with 6 rows of medals ; this is exactly the same phrase as appears in Martin Gilbert's account of the debate in the relevant volume of his biography of Churchill and appears to be being referenced by him to Nicolson's diary ( I have not verified this by consulting the diary). Subsequently this has been edited to "wearing full uniform and medals" - apparently on the grounds that 'in the UK only one row of medals are worn'  ; this generic point thus being taken to override an apparent eyewitness account
If we look at the picture on the Royal collection website of George VI's full dress uniform as Admiral of the Fleet , I think it can be seen that whilst there is indeed only one main 'medal row' (even for the fount of all honour) the eyewitness was possibly correctly reporting the general impression once order insignia are thrown in : [ and it also reminds us that if you are wearing 'full dress' uniform (which is a level of adornment, not a statement of completeness - Keyes would not have been wearing his cocked hat, nor bringing his dress sword into the Chamber) you are axiomatically wearing a selection of any UK medals and chivalric insignia that you are entitled to] Rjccumbria (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Page 76 of Nicolson's diary (entry for 7th May, 1940): A few minutes afterwards Roger Keyes comes in, dressed in full uniform with six rows of medals. Nicolson was an eyewitness, and in fact passed a note to Keyes when the admiral came into the house. Although not a military man, as a diplomat he presumably was familiar with awards and dress. This eyewitness account should not be overridden. Kablammo (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Special 70th Anniversary overhaul

I took by the horns the comments of previous entries on this page that

  1. the aftermath needed to be dealt with - I heartily concur, especially since there seem to be fairly popular counter-factuals around which start from a non-factual version of the May 9 Chamberlain/Churchill/Halifax meeting
  2. it would help to know what the debate was about ( a point I think Churchill made in his winding-up speech at the time)

I then became aware of a number of iritating minor points in the account of the debate itself (starting with Keyes' medals, Churchill was already Chairman of the Military Coordinating Committee, there's no such thing as an ex-Admiral of the Fleet etc) and then more than a bit annoyed that the article as it stood gave disproportionate space to the heckles, rather than the speeches then a bit concerned that just presenting the 3-star speeches (Amery, Lloyd George and - I think - Keyes (not because of the oratory but because of the associations and the message)) and Chamberlain shooting himself in the foot twice was misleading without giving the framework within which those speeches and the Chamberlain interventions sat

So I felt a lot more material needed to go in, and - on a show don't tell basis - wherever possible it should be direct quotes (better for people to read what X said and how he said it, than to be told roughly what he said plus 'his words thrilled the House' or some such)

So what with one thing and another there has been quite a bit of mission creep

Perhaps the resulting expansion/inflation of the article should be apologised for, perhaps it can be justified because peace hath her victories no less than war, and (some might think) the Narvik debate was a more important victory for the UK than the actual Battles of Narvik- clearly that is POV, but the quote from the MP trying to follow 'blood tears, toil' etc is kosher and says roughly that

(On 4 June 1940 Hansard reveals that the same chap thought he was required to respond to 'fight them on the beaches': he got about a sentence and a half into his few well-chosen words , then Jimmy Maxton intervened on a point of order and got the Speaker to make him give up the attempt; that really was Parliamentary democracy at work Rjccumbria (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

RJ-- you certainly have nothing to apologize for. It is very good work, and it is good to see this great moment in parliamentary history given the treatment it deserves.
I have a few suggestions, and a question:
  • It would be good to cite each quote or separate item to specific locations within Hansard. It would not be needed for each sentence, but at least at each logical break.
  • With that the last paragraph of the Background section would be unneeded.
  • There is some minor formatting work to be done-- missing full stops, citations should follow punctuation rather than precede it, quotes should not be italicized (quote marks for textual quotes are sufficient, and block quotes need no further puncuation or italics), etc. I will attend to these as time allows.
My question: Do you think the 2009 incident which closes the article is needed? It is anticlimactic, and (while important to recent UK history) almost trivial in comparison to the main subject. The article would read better if is closes with the penultimate paragraph. And while the Norway debate may have been important to the Martin resignation, that more recent event does not really inform us on the great words and deeds of 1940. Kablammo (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You are quite right about your suggestions, at least in principle. I did find, however, that the electronic Hansard is so organised that if I want to find again eg the speech Commander Bower made in the debate "any more nonsense from Musso and we should send him a postcard saying "Copenhagen 1801"" it is actually easier to go via the speaker's name and the date than via the Hansard column; so I felt at least moderately excused from extensive referencing . The real truth is I am not a completer by nature
As regards Mr Speaker Martin; no I don't think it's needed at all, and I think it lowers the tone, so to speak. If one on the side of God is a majority, then clearly we have a super-majority, and I will act forthwith Rjccumbria (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Norway Debate. 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) 02:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Is it or is it not?

What does "is not normally not put to a vote" mean? Citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.220.12 (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

This was corrected in this edit in May 2018. Kablammo (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Reversions that claim "BE" and "Your punctuation is incorrect"

  • a) There is no justification, whether in tradition or in logic, for putting a comma after the name of the day: "Thursday 2 May", not "Thursday, 2 May".
  • b) There is no justification for hyphenating "high point", nor for not hyphenating "near-whisper". See MOS:HYPHEN for guidance.
  • c) Phrasing: "government" should be referred to as singular, not plural. This is standard in academic discourse and also in English Wikipedia articles (see for example Labour government, 1964–1970). Harfarhs (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
For the most part, this is a matter of personal choice and, as I understand WP practice, if one correct (or not incorrect) style has become established within an article, it should not be changed without consensus. I believe MOS:VAR is applicable here. I didn't have time to look at this in detail last night but my first thought, especially after seeing the change of initials style, was that you may be a non-British editor. I was just shutting my tablet down when I saw your revert which prompted me to insist on BRD. I probably didn't use the right words in saying that your punctuation is incorrect – it was your immediate restoration of reverted input that was incorrect, per BRD.
(a) Both of "Thursday, 2 May" and "Thursday 2 May" are correct. I have just flicked through various books which I know to contain long dates and I see both styles. To be fair, the former does seem to occur more often in older books. For some online examples, see: Normandy landings (a WP:GA, like this article), Sky History, Yesterday and National Trust which all include "Tuesday, 6 June 1944".
(b) See Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (point 5) for "She spoke in a near whisper". My wife, who by learning and profession is an expert in English, says she would hyphenate "near-" in an adjectival expression like "near-sighted" (confirmed by Chambers) but not if the expression is nominal so that "near" is the adjective. That doesn't necessarily mean "near-whisper" is wrong as a compound noun, incidentally. I'd be interested to know what you have seen in MOS:HYPHEN to support your contention.
(b) I agree with "high point" and will amend that.
(c) The word "government" is like "team" in sport and is dependent on context. You should certainly use "it" if the context is a government in generic terms but when it is a specific group of people (i.e., Chamberlain and his ministers), it is perfectly acceptable to use they/their/them just as you may do for a specific football team. I have no problem with the use of "it" for the Wilson government if that was the writer's preference, per MOS:VAR. The same applies here.
(d) You haven't mentioned another change you made which I do not accept. That is your alteration of F. H. Hinsley, E. E. Thomas, C. F. G. Ransom and R. C. Knight to the full stop with no space format which I believe (but not 100% sure) is normal in the US. In GB, the full stop and space style is most commonly used as for J. R. R. Tolkien. I have noticed, however, that the BBC in particular seem to advocate the nothing between style: e.g., JRR Tolkien. See MOS:INITIALS. Again, MOS:VAR applies because F. H. Hinsley, etc. is the established style in this article.
(e) You also changed "Lloyd George told Amery afterwards that..." to "Lloyd George told Amery afterward that...", which is definitely a US expression and has no place in a BE article. I think, though, that the sentence would be better if it opened with "Afterwards, Lloyd George told Amery that..."
I don't amend punctuation or terminology on WP unless it is plain wrong or, if not actually wrong, is used in a way that is likely to cause confusion. MOS:VAR is sensible in its approach. If an article uses a multiplicity of styles, I would certainly seek consistency but altering an established style is generally unwise and certainly unnecessary. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Members of Parliament who took part in the debate

Would it improve the article to add a section with the following list of MPs who participated in the debate?:

- RevelationDirect (talk) 16:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Archiving

There is no need to archive this page. Please see WP:ARCHIVE and WP:TALKCOND for the relevant guidelines. Kablammo (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

There is every need to archive the page. It included discussions that were twelve to fifteen years old and no longer have any relevance. If there any discussions from the last year or so that you think should be retained, just move them out of the archive to restore them. NGS Shakin' All Over 20:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Please stop downplaying the fact you acted without consensus. Stop suggesting other editors should do work caused by you - having to pull back discussions from archive would not be needed if you did not archive them against consensus in the first place, so this argument comes across as dismissive, as it puts the onus on others, even where you are the cause. Stop trying to sneak in configuration changes without adequate edit summaries, and without achieving consensus first. I'll repeat this advice on your talk page for future reference. CapnZapp (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, I have better things to do than argue about something so utterly trivial. If you dislike archiving so much, I suggest you open an RfC. NGS Shakin' All Over 08:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I decided to take another look at this and I'm restoring the settings made in this edit. Do NOT accuse me of "acting without consensus" when the truth of the matter is that you are edit warring – and not for the first time, as I can see on your talk page. Where is your consensus for changing the settings, then? I created the automatic archiving per WP:BOLD and you have agreed that it is needed so, unless Kablammo can gain a consensus for their view, the bot will continue to visit. What is happening here is that, as usual, you are insisting that you and you alone are right, but your contention that we must always retain the last four discussions in case we lose the TOC is total bollocks. If there are less than four discussion on the page, we don't need a TOC. If a fourth one is created, the TOC is auto-generated.

As for other editors "having to pull back discussions from archive", that happens often across all projects. I've done it myself. If a discussion is complete, it is archived. If someone needs to revive a year later, they restore it. If that is too much of a problem for you, then perhaps you are on the wrong site?

I think I would like an explanation of Stop trying to sneak in configuration changes without adequate edit summaries, and without achieving consensus first. Let's see if you can explain such crap on an edit-by-edit basis. Also, edit summaries are not mandatory. And, "for future reference", stay away from my talk page. NGS Shakin' All Over 13:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I removed automatic archiving from the page. It is clear you have failed to achieve consensus for your particular implementation, not that you appear particularly interested in achieving any in the first place. CapnZapp (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the archiving because, per WP:ARCHIVE, The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 75 KB (or 75,000 bytes), or has multiple resolved or stale discussions. However, when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are subjective decisions that should be adapted to each case. For example, ongoing discussions and nearby sections they reference should generally be kept intact. Archiving is a standard process that doesn't need a consensus in itself. Attempts have been made to agree about the parameters but these have been frustrated by your insistence on preserving the TOC, which is absurd. While I have tried to compromise on parameter values, you have insisted that your strange idea about the TOC is non-negotiable and you are edit warring. Now, because someone opposes your insistence, you think you can just remove the auto archive altogether despite the fact that it has been functioning. Your claims that I need consensus are hypocritical because you obviously believe that you can do whatever you like. I can only agree with User:Darkwarriorblake, who added You don't know what you're doing to your talk page, and the various others who have complained there about your behaviour.

I suggest you raise your WP:POINT at the project talk pages and see if anyone is interested. NGS Shakin' All Over 15:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

And you are wrong again. You agreed that auto-archiving should be in the article and, as the bot has run, it is now established. The dispute is about the minthreadsleft variable and whether the parameter should be 1 (in which I have compromised from my preference of 0) or 4 as you insist there must always be a TOC. The onus is on you to gain consensus for your parameter because you changed it (B) from 1 to 4 and I (R) reverted you. So, you must (D) discuss and seek approval for 4. I contend that 4 is both unnecessary and illogical because no one needs a TOC when there are only 1, 2 or 3 threads and TOC is auto-generated when a 4th thread is commenced.

If you remove the auto-archive again, I will take you to ANI. So, please explain why you believe minthreadsleft=4 is preferable to minthreadsleft=1. NGS Shakin' All Over 21:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

You have reverted to your settings three times during the same 24 hour period, User:No Great Shaker: [1], [2] and [3]. I am sorry your rage blinded you to the bright-line rule we call 3RR, so I will simply hope you manage to self-restore the page before an admin inevitably blocks you. You really should have heeded your own advice from earlier: Frankly, I have better things to do than argue about something so utterly trivial. CapnZapp (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I am seeking advice on dispute resolution and will accept whatever decision is reached. NGS Shakin' All Over 18:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

BRD

I've had an offsite discussion about this dispute with someone whose views I respect and they have pointed out that the BRD process should have begun when I made edit #3 which reverted CapnZapp's parameter amendment in #2. Looking at the history again, I agree. I hold my hand up and apologise for the fracas which followed. I did not see #3 as a revert at the time, but it was.

Strictly speaking per BRD, CapnZapp should have commenced the discussion after #3 but, the bot having run #4 overnight, I confused the issue by doing #5 another amendment and so CapnZapp was not given opportunity to start a BRD.

As I was in the wrong, I'm not going to insist that CapnZapp should commence a BRD based on #3. Instead, I am using #2 as the base for BRD and am starting the formal process here. If I had not reverted CapnZapp's #2 amendment, the bot would have retained four of the discussions so I have moved those four back into the talk page from the new archive page as, in the circumstances, they were archived out of process.

So, with the talk page back to what it was before my #3 revert, I propose:

  • minthreadsleft = 4 should be reset to minthreadsleft = 1

My rationale for this is that I consider retention of 4 threads to be excessive. I see no reason for retaining any if they are all several months old but perhaps keeping one does make the page look used and provides a useful example for any new editors who want to post a message. The situation with ToC is that it is hardly necessary for less than 4 threads and it is auto-generated by the opening of the 4th thread (as you can see, it has been auto-generated by this edit).

I will accept algo = old(120d) although my personal preference is for a shorter period and, if anyone else wants a shorter period, that will be fine by me.

I think I have been reasonable here and I hope we can now move forward in a constructive and friendly manner. NGS Shakin' All Over 08:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

What you did was to introduce archiving in a way that gave zero time (or, to be accurate, 1 day) for people to give their feedback. You have also consistently argued in bad faith, and did the classic - following me around to see if you could rile me up by reverting edits unrelated to the issue at hand. If you have sought out advice that is a great first step towards rebuilding trust. However, you are still investing a suspiciously large amount of energy in this, so I would like to see your long-term reaction to not getting everything you want. Of course, I am not blameless myself. My counter-proposal, therefore, is that we follow the only uninvolved editor's input and both stay out of it for an extended period of time. In other words, no automatic archiving at this time, per Kablammo's feedback. CapnZapp (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
It occurred to me that the bot will run tonight and remove threads 1 & 2 above so I've amended to minthreadsleft = 6 which will keep everything as is until such time as a final setting is agreed. I'm not going to be using the site much through this summer so I'll be staying away in any event. NGS Shakin' All Over 20:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

"At the end of the second day, a vote held by the members resulted in a drastically reduced government majority"

What this sentence means is that the vote made it clear the government had a much smaller majority than expected.

But it is written in the language of British politics. Laugh if you must but a straight-forward reading suggests there was a vote to reduce the majority, whatever that means. Of course it really means the vote itself revealed the majority to be diminished.

While this might feel obvious to you, I feel we should use easier more direct words.

The article uses the term "division". This is only really given an explanation/definition in the lead, not in the body of the article. While historical perhaps, I feel it is unnecessarily obtuse for a 2019 article directed at a general readership.

The sentence Attlee's restraint, in not calling for a division is first in the body to use this term. Why not simply rewrite this to say "calling for a motion of no confidence (termed "a division" at the time)"? CapnZapp (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you have made a good point about the sentence you've highlighted so I've reworded it to read: "At the end of the second day, the members held a vote of confidence which was won by the government, but with a drastically reduced government majority". We should say what the vote was about.
Thx CapnZapp (talk) 10:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
"Division" is not a historical term. It remains correct terminology for any vote in the Commons because the members "divide" into one of two lobbies. There will be a division today when members vote on Johnson's deal with the EU. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Then that term needs to be explained/bluelinked. CapnZapp (talk) 10:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
And any such attempt should not be made exclusively in the lead. The lead should consist of a summary of the body, i.e. there should not be anything in the lead that isn't taken from the article body. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt but if the purpose is to explain to a reader that "division" means vote, hiding that fact through a piped link defeats the purpose - all the reader sees is a blue "vote" that he (with good reason) presumes explains what voting is. But explaining "vote" is much more fundamental than explaining "division"! Then, when he encounters "division" on its own he's none the wiser. Making a stab at copyediting this... CapnZapp (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, User:No Great Shaker for further clarifying this issue. This article has too long been edited solely by editors too accustomed to British political terminology; unable or unwilling to realize that discussing "division" without explanation is confusing for the greater readership. Like it or not, "division" is effectively MOS:JARGON. CapnZapp (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

No problem, CapnZapp, and you're right that it is parliamentary jargon. It struck me that Attlee also used the word in its military sense so I thought I should tighten up on the respective meanings and get it out of the lead. Thanks for your help with the article which is much better. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

You reverted me with the edit summary Undid revision 996281269 by CapnZapp (talk) – incorrect because a division is any vote in Parliament, not specifically a censure motion; also it is completely inappropriate to dismiss the term as "jargon" (BE applies here and the term is widely understood in GB)

Does that mean you have completely reversed your opinion from this day exactly one year ago, User:No Great Shaker? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

No, but I don't think a word like "jargon" is appropriate in the article itself. It's fine in discussion, but it has a different connotation here than in America. The first mentions of "division" (military by Attlee and parliamentary by Amery in the same section) are accompanied by explanation as necessary and linked to the relevant articles. I see no need for adding "division" to the lead because the vote in question was specifically a vote of no confidence – the division as such (i.e., splitting into lobbies) is the means by which the vote is completed. Hope this helps. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I hope it helps, User:No Great Shaker. I'm certainly not wed to the term "jargon", but I did use it in its "specialized terminology" meaning (e.g. {{Jargon}}) and not "technical slang" (both definitions from Jargon). I do presume you still agree to what I said at the start of this section: The article uses the term "division". This is only really given an explanation/definition in the lead, not in the body of the article. While historical perhaps, I feel it is unnecessarily obtuse for a 2019 article directed at a general readership. Now then - the article no longer defines the term division in the lead! It's buried in "Attlee's response to Chamberlain" - and I feel it's entirely insufficient to just assume every reader of the Norway Debate#8 May: second day and division section has just read "7 May: first day of the debate" very carefully, and not just skimmed it or skipped it. I keep arguing that while most editors knowledgeable of this monumental debate might well take the term for granted, it is definitely not common parlance for the average reader of Wikipedia. I would even say the way the politicians used the term creatively, with phrases like "divide the House", "intend a division", "forcing a division", "the Labour decision to divide" etc it is not even clear they all refer to one and the same thing, and that this thing is not "discontent within Tory ranks" (the article also says "regarded it as divisive" and "was considered partisan and divisive" and that without referring to any division!) but something very specific to British politics. Perhaps the most critical example is the sentence "the Labour decision to divide turned the routine adjournment motion into "the equivalent of a vote of censure" - it definitely merits a {{technical}} cleanup tag in my estimate. And so I hope you weren't just explaining to me (here at talk) when it the article reader that needs the help (I do understand the term myself). Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, CapnZapp. I agree it should be clarified for readers' benefit so I've amended the second sentence of the lead to include mention of both the division and the vote with a footnote added that explains division in terms of parliamentary procedure. I think a footnote is always a good way to add an explanation as it is easily accessed if required (and can be read by mouseover without leaving the lead) or ignored if not. Have a look and see if you think it is okay. All the best for 2021 and stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Norway_Debate/Archive_1&oldid=1167987061"