Talk:Norway Debate

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

January 2022

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)

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)

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)

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)

I missed it too. I saw "January 2019" yesterday and thought, without reading further, it's an old discussion. Anyway, the item has been removed and the issue is resolved. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

My error, and my apologies to all. Now corrected. Clearly I'm living in the past. Kablammo (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)