This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Norway Debate 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 |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 120 days |
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. |
Norway Debate 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. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on May 7, 2014, May 7, 2015, May 7, 2020, and May 7, 2022. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
I would just make a further point about this because it's looking increasingly likely that Johnson will be facing a no confidence vote in the near future. As Davis is an influential member of the Tory Party, his comment will probably be revived in the media. I strongly recommend that anyone reintroducing it to this article is immediately reverted. NGS Shakin' All Over 11:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ CapnZapp:: "when you are reverted, you take it to talk. And cut it out with your unfounded accusations or I'll report you."
Hello and thanks for taking this to talk. First off, please realize you simply must not go around making unfounded "suggestions" (exact quote: are you suggesting that the Nazi party alone or just card carrying members invaded their neighbouring countries and not the German state?
) This simply won't do and you need to stop, now. I will not respond further to such drivel, and will act as if you never said it. Please don't make me regret this act of assuming good faith; hopefully we can discuss without such unpleasantries.
Second, you don't get to decide what revert reasons are "valid". When you are reverted, please assume good faith; that is, that the reverting editor saw their actions as valid and necessary. Discussing on talk is where you attempt to find out what those reasons are.
In this case, if you agree "Nazi aggression" means the same thing as "German aggression" why make the change? One is more specific than the other: "German aggression" with no context could mean any historic period; "Nazi aggression" only one. Different articles are written differently; we certainly do not have to make all articles conform to the same standard. (Put simply: do not point to other talk discussions not involving this page as if they get to set site-wide precedents; they don't.) The current wording has stood for years without being seen as inappropriate, it it is certainly not wrong; it can stand for many years to come in my opinion. CapnZapp ( talk) 22:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Norway Debate 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 |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 120 days |
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. |
Norway Debate 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. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on May 7, 2014, May 7, 2015, May 7, 2020, and May 7, 2022. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
I would just make a further point about this because it's looking increasingly likely that Johnson will be facing a no confidence vote in the near future. As Davis is an influential member of the Tory Party, his comment will probably be revived in the media. I strongly recommend that anyone reintroducing it to this article is immediately reverted. NGS Shakin' All Over 11:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ CapnZapp:: "when you are reverted, you take it to talk. And cut it out with your unfounded accusations or I'll report you."
Hello and thanks for taking this to talk. First off, please realize you simply must not go around making unfounded "suggestions" (exact quote: are you suggesting that the Nazi party alone or just card carrying members invaded their neighbouring countries and not the German state?
) This simply won't do and you need to stop, now. I will not respond further to such drivel, and will act as if you never said it. Please don't make me regret this act of assuming good faith; hopefully we can discuss without such unpleasantries.
Second, you don't get to decide what revert reasons are "valid". When you are reverted, please assume good faith; that is, that the reverting editor saw their actions as valid and necessary. Discussing on talk is where you attempt to find out what those reasons are.
In this case, if you agree "Nazi aggression" means the same thing as "German aggression" why make the change? One is more specific than the other: "German aggression" with no context could mean any historic period; "Nazi aggression" only one. Different articles are written differently; we certainly do not have to make all articles conform to the same standard. (Put simply: do not point to other talk discussions not involving this page as if they get to set site-wide precedents; they don't.) The current wording has stood for years without being seen as inappropriate, it it is certainly not wrong; it can stand for many years to come in my opinion. CapnZapp ( talk) 22:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)