Jump to content

Talk:Norway Debate

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CapnZapp (talk | contribs) at 07:08, 20 January 2022 (→January 2019). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

1

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Norway Debate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Femkemilene (talk · contribs) 15:16, 6 September 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.
lede
  • The note in the lede seems a bit off. I think it's better to place this as an actual note after the first quote from this work.
Agreed: a slightly amended version of the note has been added to the footnotes and is referenced at the first quotation.
  • The term division is jargon imo. Could you add an explanation? Especially in the lede, it's not recommended that leaders have to rely on links. Even following the link, I still don't quite understand why the government lost its majority from some of its party members voting against it. Am I right in my understanding that they have to 'lose the whip'?
Disagree. Division is absolutely NOT jargon. It means that MPs split into two division lobbies to either support or oppose a motion. As for "lose the whip", please do not be influenced by the complete and absolute buffoon that is temporarily (and unelected) in Downing Street today. Chamberlain's government did not lose its majority: the point is that the vastly reduced majority was devastating in the circumstances and Chamberlain felt obliged to resign in the national interest. Unlike Johnson, Chamberlain was an honourable man.
In terms of lost majority, my mistake. I should have stated drastically reduced majority. I still believe that division is specific terminology used to described parliamentary procedures and therefore jargon. Voting against the government still doesn't automatically imply that they stop supporting the government in all cases, right? Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've altered the word order and replaced "division" with "vote" which should clarify the point. I suppose as regards the intentions of the Tory "rebels", they were focused on a matter of vital national interest which transcended party politics. They wanted a national government which included Labour and they wanted a different PM. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could an explanation be giving before the first introduction of Hansard (f.i. the parliamentary archives of Hansard). Terms that require prior knowledge are especially discouraged under WP:EXPLAINLEAD.
Amended to "Hansard parliamentary archive". No Great Shaker (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were calls for national unity to be established by formation of an all-party coalition, but it was not possible for Chamberlain to reach agreement with the opposition Labour and Liberal parties who refused to serve under his leadership, though they would accept a different Conservative leader and, after Chamberlain resigned, they agreed to serve under Churchill. This sentence would benefit form being split into two.
Agreed. Done. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
preamble
I'd merge the two last paragraphs.
Agreed. Done. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
rest article
  • Under Westminster rules in such debates, held to allow for wide-ranging discussion of a variety of topics, the question is not usually put to a vote: bit of an awkward sentence. Also, the word question might be confusing. Would matter/topic of debate be better?
Amended to "Under Westminster rules, in debates like this which are held to allow for wide-ranging discussion of a variety of topics, the issue is not usually put to a vote". However, "question" is the correct term but I agree that the reader needs to be able to understand the complexities of Parliament.
  • (not for GA: had to Google 'to make light of'. Maybe an easier synonym is available. I've only lived in UK for two years, not a native speaker, so my judgement may be off).
No problem. It's a colloquial term and I've changed it to "treat as unimportant" which is what it means.
  • The Speaker had to call on members not to interrupt, but they continued to repeat the phrase throughout Chamberlain's speech and, reacting with what has been described as "a rather feminine gesture of irritation", he was eventually forced to defend its original usage directly, claiming that he would have expected a German attack on the Allies at the outbreak of war when the disparity of arms was at its greatest I don't fully understand this sentence. Can you split it in two? What original usage does the sentence refer to? What is disparity of arms?
Split into two sentences as requested. The phrase "disparity of arms" (now amended) meant the difference in armed power between GB and Germany at that time. Germany was considerably better armed than us in 1939 but by 1942 the opposite was the case, especially after the USA entered the war.
  • Leo Amery said Chamberlain's speech left the House in a restive and depressed, though not yet mutinous, state of mind This is the first mention of Leo Amery. An introductory word (Tory/Labour, backbench/cabinet) would clarify.
Good point. Amery was a backbench Tory MP at that time. He later joined Churchill's government.
  • which amounted to him having direction of is that correct English?
Yes. Will be glad to amend it if you have a better suggestion.
Okay. Afraid I don't have a better suggestion. I think this sentence is sufficiently clear even for people unfamiliar with this specific idiom. Do note that generally, idioms are to be avoided Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the section title An ordinary debate transforms feels like an opinion.
Not an opinion as the narrative shows but I agree it's a bit headline-ish so I've altered it. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is re-armament military jargon? If so, can it be replaced by easier words?
It is military terminology and NOT jargon.
Maybe the word jargon has a negative connotation, but its definition is terminology specific to a field (such as military).
  • (Not GA: You might want to avoid using more uncommon idioms, such as: this brought Churchill to his feet).
Changed to "Churchill intervened and said".
  • which accurately reflected the mood of the House: is this sufficiently true to be said in Wikivoice? Or should somebody be attributed this statement?
It is attributed in the next sentence by Jenkins as cited.
  • who succeeded Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty: I think the word later should be added? This hasn't happened yet?
Disagree. Alexander directly succeeded Churchill after Winston became PM. "Later" is superfluous" and would amount to bad English given the context.
Okay.
  • He explained that even the successful use of the battleship HMS Warspite at Narvik had put her at risk from many hazards; had any come to pass, the operation, now hailed as an example of what should have been done elsewhere, would have been condemned as foolhardy. Too many commas and semi-colons to easily read.
I completely disagree because that is how semi-colons are meant to be used. Even so, I've split it into two sentences.
  • At 23:00, the Speaker rose to put the question. Maybe use more modern way of expressing this?
No, the modern way of putting this is exactly as it was in 1940. "Putting the question" remains the 2019 phraseology and so it is "modern". Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article would benefit from more paraphrasing of quotes. Not all quotes are sufficiently noteworthy in my opinion to make up half of the text (discussing the actual debate). I think a better proportion is 1/3. Consider shortening the longer quotes.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

(Not GA: This is a difficult one for me to judge. The original prose has a few weasel words. The quoted text however is full of them, as expected from political debate and subsequent framing. I feel that quotes are sometimes used a bit too much as an 'excuse' to use emotional language. This makes the text more readable, but maybe also on the boundaries of encyclopian style. An example: speaking to a "crescendo of applause")

Have added the necessary citation for that quotation which was missing.
  • In the further speeches subsection, very pointedly seems a word to watch, as does 'dismissed' (described is better). The reader can decide whether this is pointedly.
Have removed "very pointedly" as it was unnecessary. As for "dismissed", that is correct as per the source but I will accept "described".
  • More possible weasel words: listened in breathless silence.
Removed "breathless" although it is what the source says.
  • And to hear Amery's memorable conclusion (leave memorable out?).
Removed "memorable" although it is an accurate adjective.
  • payback is possibly too negative/too emotional.
Amended to "retribution", although "payback" is used by the source and is perfectly acceptable in this context.
  • An angry Chamberlain -> Chamberlain. Anger is clear from quote.
Agreed. Amended.
  • to sit down to a 'strained silence'.
Okay: amended to "There was silence as Lloyd George sat down".
  • Lloyd George produced a memorable analogy. Again, the word memorable is editorialising.
Have removed "memorable" although it is the adjective used accurately by Jenkins whose further comments are cited in the following sentence.
  • by his manner and brilliance of speech might need quote marks.
Yes, better with quotes as Nicolson said it.
  • by quoting Britain's greatest naval hero. This is obviously an opinion and should not be stated in Wikivoice.
Replaced with name.
  • wild, unrestrained cheering. Again, should not be said in Wikivoice.
Replaced with "the government's opponents cheered him".
  • maverick not in Wikivoice.
Removed.
You have commented that the adjectives are accurate and given in the source. I agree with those statements, but I still think they are inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. This is explained well in the Manual of Style's Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch page.
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. The article is somewhat light on inline citations, but gives one for every statement that is likely challenged.
There are nearly 100 inline citations. Please list any sentences or paragraphs where you think extra citations are needed.
My preference (again, not a GA criterion) is at least one inline citation per paragraph. You might want to consider that if you ever decide to go for FA. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any paragraphs that have no citations. The quotations are cited at the colon where they are introduced. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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). The works cited are written from a variety of perspectives. At least one portrays Chamberlain in a more positive light than Churchill tried to paint him in.
I don't understand this comment. Churchill was very generous towards Chamberlain after he became PM, perhaps too much so.
I'll defer to your knowledge here. Read some reviews of the sources used to assess reliability.
It's true that some writers are very much anti-Chamberlain because of appeasement, while others are more sympathetic. Churchill was very fond of Chamberlain despite their former differences re appeasement, especially after Chamberlain supported him in the Halifax fiasco during Dunkirk.
2c. it contains no original research. The nominator uses direct quotes from a primary source, which can be considered boundary OR. Many of those are justified by the fact that secondary sources also seem to refer to this part of the debate or even refer to the quotes themselves. There is, however, one sentence that tends towards original research:

None of their speeches are mentioned much outside Hansard. The last one, Brooke, finished at 21:14 and gave way to A. V. Alexander who wound up for Labour. He began by referring to a comment made by Brooke, a Chamberlain supporter. Alexander said: None of their speeches are mentioned much outside Hansard is, I think, original research. Including this quote, which is apparently not quoted in the secondary sources, could arguably also be seen as OR: When he (Brooke) referred to the need for men with burning hearts and cool heads, I confess it struck me that one could hardly recognise in the intervention of the Prime Minister this afternoon the quality of a cool head.

It isn't OR but it isn't essential either so I've removed it.
Okay, I thought you may have yourself concluded that the speeches aren't mentioned much outside of Hansard, which would constitute OR of course. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Did the copyvio test. The article contains, by its nature, a lot of quotes, they popped up but are all properly attributed. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). The article is quite long (46kb readable prose), but no specific parts are overly detailed. You might want to consider deleting some sentences:
  • Seconds into his speech, members had to call upon him to speak up. He replied that he was a Welshman and would warm up once he got going: he did. ::Okay: removed that one although it is sourced.
  • despite being a lay preacher and a teetotaller. I think this is a detail and can be removed. The sentence serves as providing context why this person is not like Churchill and therefore requires knowledge from the reader about Churchill himself that some people (at least me) don't have.
Changed to "despite being completely different in character and personality". Churchill was an atheist and, famously, a heavy drinker (brandy for breakfast, etc.). Poles apart from the likes of Alexander.

(not GA criterion. maybe critically look at some of the less important quotes. WP:Quotation discourages the use of too many quotations. While this topic needs a substantial amount of citation, I think it needs to reduce the amount a bit before it can be considered for FA).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. I'm not expert in this part of history, so I wouldn't be able to detect any subtle forms of non-neutrality. Nothing in the article would make me believe there is though.
I have tried to be completely objective throughout. If there is anything that hints at my intense dislike of the Conservative Party, given that I am a left-wing socialist, please point it out because I do want the article to be neutral and strictly objective. Thanks.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Talk page and history indicate stability. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. I usually do this first, as it's often an easy green tick. Unfortunately, there is probably a problem with that beautiful painting of Chamberlain, which might not be free to use for another 6 years. No problems with any of the other figures on Commons. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Good selection of figures and captions. (Not needed for GA of course, but picture of the actual debate would be nice if available). Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not possible. Cameras in Parliament at that time were strictly forbidden.
7. Overall assessment. Thanks for bringing such a well-written and interesting article to GAN and therefore to my attention. I enjoy reading it. I do realise that some of my comments (about the words to watch) will make the article have less of a literary quality to comply with the encyclopic style and that that can be considered as more boring. Sorry for that.
No need to apologise. It's a very thorough review and it has helped that another pair of eyes has seen what mine have missed, which is the whole point of a review. Thanks very much.

First glance of this article is quite good. Only concern is that the language, while beautiful, is sometimes a tad bit too difficult. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Femke. I've replaced the image of Chamberlain with one that seems to be in the public domain, though it's not as good as the portrait. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just seen that a lot of work has been done on this article and on the May 1940 Crisis, both of which were on my extensive "get round to working on one of these years" list!
Re the comment above, that a photo of the debate is "not possible", there actually is one, taken by an MP who had smuggled in a tiny camera disguised as a lighter or something. He had to put it away when he noticed a Sergeant at Arms eyeing him suspiciously. It's blurry but you can make out NC standing to speak and WSC sitting on the front bench (and I think that's John Simon sat next to Churchill). It has appeared in a number of books since it came to light in (I think) the early Nineties. I'm pretty sure it's discussed in the Shakespeare book which came out a couple of years ago.
Here is a link https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Chamberlain7May40Crop-1-840x430.jpg
Not sure whether it's copyright or not - I don't get involved in pictures, as it were.Paulturtle (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final round of comments (sorry to have put the article on hold before noticing these)

  • which accurately reflected the mood of the House bit of OR?
Reworded to "In answer, Lloyd George said".
  • raucous laughter raucous would probably be word to watch.
Word is used by the source but removed anyway as unnecessary.
  • Could you paraphrase some of the quotes in Churchill winds up for the Government to improve readability. One sentence quotes + one-sentence prose makes it difficult to read.
Okay. Have edited these.
  • paraphrasing the quotes in Attlee's response to Chamberlain would be beneficial as well.
As above, but not "missed the bus" as that is significant.
    • Again, I am a bit concerned by the use of quotes whose significance is not made clear in secondary sources. It's typically advisable to not base large portions of your text on primary sources: WP:PRIMARY.
In an article like this, which is an account of a debate, the opinions and statements of the participants as quoted directly by Hansard are of fundamental importance to an understanding of what the debate achieved. The secondary sources do support the significance of the speeches quoted but if you would like to see any additional citations, please add a "citation needed" flag at the appropriate place. Thanks.
  • leapt to his feet words to watch.
Replaced with "stood".

Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think one should perhaps be a little wary of over-zealous trimming - if the source account says that there was "raucous laughter" (assuming it's deriving from a primary account and isn't just the writer getting a bit carried away and writing sloppily) then that's not quite the same thing as "friendly laughter" or "hearty laughter", although it might be the same thing as "derisive laughter" or "scornful laughter".Paulturtle (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
Then that term needs to be explained/bluelinked. CapnZapp (talk) 10:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lead section

The lead section doesn't even state what the debate was specifically about and its relations to the war. It only comments on "how important it was" and the result of the party transitions. Shouldn't it be changed? Lectrician1 (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of the lead explains that the official title of the debate, as held in the Hansard parliamentary archive, is Conduct of the War. Also that, scheduled in advance, it was initiated by an adjournment motion enabling the Commons to freely discuss the progress of the Norwegian Campaign. That, in a nutshell, is what the debate was originally about but it soon developed into an overall examination of Chamberlain's government since the war began. Does that help? No Great Shaker (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My answer would be that the lead says it was a "momentous" "far-reaching" debate and then explains it led to Chamberlain's replacement with Churchill. You are correct in so far that it takes the "momentousness" of this for given. In other words, if you go "oh, that's why Churchill came into power - he saved Britain" then I would say, yes, it adequately explains itself. If, however, you go "Churchill? So?" then I can agree it does not. However, the question then becomes what level of competence this rather-specialized article should assume of its readership? (So far, clearly more the former than the latter). Regards CapnZapp (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about this topic. Am I right that the debate was about helping stop the German invasion of Norway? I was expecting for that basic fact about the purpose of the debate to be mentioned in the lead section, but it's not. Lectrician1 (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The debate wasn't about trying to stop the invasion which had already happened and had well nigh succeeded. It was about Allied progress during the campaign and it quickly escalated into a full-scale review of government performance not just during the Norwegian Campaign but since the war began. The lead is not incorrect, although it could be expanded, or reworded in places, as is the case with any article. You need to bear in mind that the article is about the debate and the aftermath, albeit briefly discussed, is actually out of scope. Also, the purpose of any lead section is to summarise the article's narrative and, in that, this one succeeds without going into excessive detail about who said what, etc. Hope this helps. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

I do not believe the recent employment of Amery's quotation of Cromwell's words to the Long Parliament in a political dispute contributes anything at all to our understanding of the Norway Debate. We addressed a similar matter above on this page in Talk:Norway_Debate#Special_70th_Anniversary_overhaul toward the end. While that use of Cromwell's words may have relevance to the current dispute regarding the PM, it is not relevant to this article as it sheds no light on the events of 1940. And as we did above, it should be deleted. Kablammo (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a strong view either way and if anything I agree with you which is why I removed the implication that BoJo no longer is PM and the language which apart from being contrary to WP:NPOV seemed to exalt the quote as critical in worsening Johnson's position. I agree with the previous discussion that the section should not be a simple list of every time an MP has repeated the quote. Perhaps if it transpires that he resigns and the use of the quote becomes critically linked with that then we might want to reconsider, but right now we can do without it. Jtrrs0 (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Davis is hardly the first MP in the last 82 years to either use those words or allude to them. It's just WP:RECENTISM to include this one particular incident. You might as well dig out comparisons to Amery of Sir Geoffrey Howe's speech against Thatcher - like Amery this was someone who had once been a strong ally of the PM and also defied his reputation as an absolutely boring speaker. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The inapt employment of parliamentary quotes has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished. Kablammo (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Hello. Upon returning here I realize this section might be discussing the same thing I am just below. If so, apologies for starting a duplicate section, but really, why name it 2019? CapnZapp (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Place in parliamentary culture

Removed this as probably trivia. The source only confirms the quote was made, without establishing any reason why we should report it.

If Boris Johnson actually IS removed, and we can source that this quote was influential in removing him, then yes, it definitely merits inclusion.

But as long as it is only a random MP making quotes, let's not. CapnZapp (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was to just amend it, though I wasn't entirely convinced of its merit in being here. I agree it should be removed because, as you say, it's trivia and we don't want to detract from the greatest debate in parliamentary history by mentioning the worst prime minister in parliamentary history. Chamberlain certainly had to go, but there can be no doubt about his honour and integrity. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Norway_Debate&oldid=1066811339"