# Talk:Norway Debate

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)

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)
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)

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)

@CapnZapp:: "when you are reverted, you take it to talk. And cut it out with your unfounded accusations or I'll report you."

You have to provide a valid reason for reverting an edit. Stating "please don't hide the "Nazi" of the name" is not valid revert. What accusation exactly? The wording in the article, "Nazi aggression" for example, it's just short-hand for German aggression; so why not be accurate instead? For those who may not be use to seeing such, it implies just card-carrying members of the Nazi party launched attacks across Europe rather than it being the German state that did.
As for standing consensus, see (just to name a few): 2007, 2010, 2016, 2017, 2023.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
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)
When exactly did you assume good faith when you immediately reverted an edit (without taking it to the talkpage) with the claim that piping a link is hiding something? Or, with your inability to address a rhetorical question about the choice of wording, or your immediate jump to report without engaging? It looks like a lot of bad faith editing and arguing on your part (or "drivel" as you put it).
Your argument that well established wide reaching community consensus can be ignored, is not good enough. Why should it be ignored? You admit you are retaining the wording as shorthand, rather than being precise. Your additional argument that it can only mean one period, as opposed to a reader being confused as to what time period of Germany attacked Norway just lends to the notion that you have done a poor job of providing context to the reader if that is what you have to relay on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 14:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I have posted a message on your personal talk. You're clearly in no shape to have a AGF discussion right now. CapnZapp (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)