This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2019 British prorogation controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | 2019 British prorogation controversy has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on September 24, 2019. | |||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on September 24, 2021, and September 24, 2022. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Sceptre: thanks for setting up this article. this looks good. thanks! -- Sm8900 ( talk) 13:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@ DeFacto: I think you're misrepresenting the Adam Price piece as "just an opinion piece" when, in context, it's clear that he's making a statement of Plaid Cymru policy as the party leader. Impeachment of Johnson over failing to enact EU(W)(2)A is already Plaid policy ( [1]), Plaid have been putting out feelers to the other opposition parties regarding impeachment, and both Liz Saville-Roberts (as Westminster group leader) and the Plaid twitter have shared today's article. I don't think any viable reading leads to the conclusion that Plaid wouldn't support impeachment if the Supreme Court rules against the Government. With that said, the mere possibility of impeachment is notable enough for inclusion, and I don't think a dispute over wording justifies the removal of the entire paragraph. As a compromise, what do you feel towards the new wording? Sceptre ( talk) 19:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
So all we need then, to satisfy the requirements of WP:DUE, is a few of those RSes linking Price's 15 September comments to the party's impeachment calls - and if they deserve the weight you think they do, those RSes should be easy to find. OTOH, if no RSes have covered his comments, then it is time to remove them. Either way, I've said all I'm going to say on this now, I'll leave it to others to decide if there is a consensus to retain Price's comments, sourced solely to his self-written opinion piece on the HuffPost website. -- DeFacto ( talk). 21:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
This article's definition calls its subject "...an ongoing controversy that concerns the prorogation of the Parliament of the United Kingdom...". Does that mean we should call this article 2019 United Kingdom prorogation controversy rather than 2019 British prorogation controversy? - Polly Tunnel ( talk) 17:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Since the Supreme Court has now ruled, does this not now end any controversy? It is now biased (and lazy) language to call it a controversy. It has become a historic and landmark legal judgement ( R (Miller) v The Prime Minister), rather than a 'controversy'. Should the article not just be titled 2019 Prorogation of United Kingdom Parliament? Carcharoth ( talk) 10:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
It's important to be aware that according to the Supreme Court, "Parliament is not prorogued" and "Parliament has not been prorogued". So all references to "prorogation" in this article ought to say "ostensible prorogation" "purported prorogation" etc. 86.180.11.34 ( talk) 18:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Sceptre: It's always good to find a sensible editor working on WP. Thanks for launching the article. Of course, the controversy isn't over with today's verdict by the Supreme Court. But the more sensible anyone is the more likely they are to be Plagued by Painfully Pedantic People. O Murr ( talk) 20:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
It's also controversial because it overturns the High Court verdict by the three most senior judges in England. I wonder how they feel about it? O Murr ( talk) 08:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the article should be named in a more matter-of-fact way, i.e. 2019 British Prorogation, or Prorogation Attempt, or Prorogation Crisis 31.205.43.193 ( talk) 21:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
[moved here from my talkpage as it is about my edit to this article. -- DeFacto ( talk). 20:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
So, you are saying that the information is unreliably sourced? How does adding a layer help the reader understand that? Wouldn't it be better to explain things directly than to use journalism-ese? Abductive ( reasoning) 20:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
How many British prorogation controversies have occurred in 2019? In any year other than 2019? Have any occurred in 2019 outside Britain? Abductive ( reasoning) 20:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
As though it were a personal event... ~ R. T. G 09:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Self-coup#Boris Johnson. Has the UK suffered a coup d'etat? --
DeFacto (
talk).
12:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the whole article probably needs a serious working over given some of it was as reported at the time, but later discovered to be procedurally not the case. For example the current statement 'Prorogation brought to an end a parliamentary session which had sat for 341 days.' on 10 Sep 2019 is incorrect according to Parliament itself: 'Since the prorogation has been declared null and void the 2017-19 parliamentary session continues. As a result all Bills of the 2017 session which fell because they had not concluded their passage through Parliament at the time of the prorogation remain live.' [4] and so Parliamentary debate on the Domestic Abuse bill continued into October. I don't know the final total length of the session, but it should be updated somewhere easily accessible.
Of course can continue to use 'prorogation' as a word as it was in sources at the time. That's all it is, a word, but so is the agreement of court and all politicians that the description is incorrect and the record should be amended. From the comments above the insertion of 'ostensible' or 'ostensibly' seems apt. 'Apparent' is another possibility. Those avoid confusing the reader who has the benefit of hindsight. -- Cedders tk 18:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2019 British prorogation controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | 2019 British prorogation controversy has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on September 24, 2019. | |||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on September 24, 2021, and September 24, 2022. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Sceptre: thanks for setting up this article. this looks good. thanks! -- Sm8900 ( talk) 13:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@ DeFacto: I think you're misrepresenting the Adam Price piece as "just an opinion piece" when, in context, it's clear that he's making a statement of Plaid Cymru policy as the party leader. Impeachment of Johnson over failing to enact EU(W)(2)A is already Plaid policy ( [1]), Plaid have been putting out feelers to the other opposition parties regarding impeachment, and both Liz Saville-Roberts (as Westminster group leader) and the Plaid twitter have shared today's article. I don't think any viable reading leads to the conclusion that Plaid wouldn't support impeachment if the Supreme Court rules against the Government. With that said, the mere possibility of impeachment is notable enough for inclusion, and I don't think a dispute over wording justifies the removal of the entire paragraph. As a compromise, what do you feel towards the new wording? Sceptre ( talk) 19:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
So all we need then, to satisfy the requirements of WP:DUE, is a few of those RSes linking Price's 15 September comments to the party's impeachment calls - and if they deserve the weight you think they do, those RSes should be easy to find. OTOH, if no RSes have covered his comments, then it is time to remove them. Either way, I've said all I'm going to say on this now, I'll leave it to others to decide if there is a consensus to retain Price's comments, sourced solely to his self-written opinion piece on the HuffPost website. -- DeFacto ( talk). 21:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
This article's definition calls its subject "...an ongoing controversy that concerns the prorogation of the Parliament of the United Kingdom...". Does that mean we should call this article 2019 United Kingdom prorogation controversy rather than 2019 British prorogation controversy? - Polly Tunnel ( talk) 17:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Since the Supreme Court has now ruled, does this not now end any controversy? It is now biased (and lazy) language to call it a controversy. It has become a historic and landmark legal judgement ( R (Miller) v The Prime Minister), rather than a 'controversy'. Should the article not just be titled 2019 Prorogation of United Kingdom Parliament? Carcharoth ( talk) 10:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
It's important to be aware that according to the Supreme Court, "Parliament is not prorogued" and "Parliament has not been prorogued". So all references to "prorogation" in this article ought to say "ostensible prorogation" "purported prorogation" etc. 86.180.11.34 ( talk) 18:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Sceptre: It's always good to find a sensible editor working on WP. Thanks for launching the article. Of course, the controversy isn't over with today's verdict by the Supreme Court. But the more sensible anyone is the more likely they are to be Plagued by Painfully Pedantic People. O Murr ( talk) 20:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
It's also controversial because it overturns the High Court verdict by the three most senior judges in England. I wonder how they feel about it? O Murr ( talk) 08:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the article should be named in a more matter-of-fact way, i.e. 2019 British Prorogation, or Prorogation Attempt, or Prorogation Crisis 31.205.43.193 ( talk) 21:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
[moved here from my talkpage as it is about my edit to this article. -- DeFacto ( talk). 20:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
So, you are saying that the information is unreliably sourced? How does adding a layer help the reader understand that? Wouldn't it be better to explain things directly than to use journalism-ese? Abductive ( reasoning) 20:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
How many British prorogation controversies have occurred in 2019? In any year other than 2019? Have any occurred in 2019 outside Britain? Abductive ( reasoning) 20:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
As though it were a personal event... ~ R. T. G 09:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Self-coup#Boris Johnson. Has the UK suffered a coup d'etat? --
DeFacto (
talk).
12:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the whole article probably needs a serious working over given some of it was as reported at the time, but later discovered to be procedurally not the case. For example the current statement 'Prorogation brought to an end a parliamentary session which had sat for 341 days.' on 10 Sep 2019 is incorrect according to Parliament itself: 'Since the prorogation has been declared null and void the 2017-19 parliamentary session continues. As a result all Bills of the 2017 session which fell because they had not concluded their passage through Parliament at the time of the prorogation remain live.' [4] and so Parliamentary debate on the Domestic Abuse bill continued into October. I don't know the final total length of the session, but it should be updated somewhere easily accessible.
Of course can continue to use 'prorogation' as a word as it was in sources at the time. That's all it is, a word, but so is the agreement of court and all politicians that the description is incorrect and the record should be amended. From the comments above the insertion of 'ostensible' or 'ostensibly' seems apt. 'Apparent' is another possibility. Those avoid confusing the reader who has the benefit of hindsight. -- Cedders tk 18:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)