Talk:1937 Social Credit backbenchers' revolt

Terminology
The question was raised in the FAC discussion of whether "backbench" is a term that could be assumed to be understood. The more I thought about this, the more i thought that this could be an issue with quite a few political terms, including two general used in any explanation of "backbench": namely "cabinet" and "caucus". One option might be to drop "backbench" from the lead altogether, so that it reads "It was a rebellion against Premier William Aberhart by some Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) from his Social Credit League." "Backbench" can then be explained somewhere early in the body text. At the same time, one might need to do likewise with "caucus". We can only hope that "cabinet" does not need similar explanation. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As the one who raised the point in the FAC, I find Steve Smith's comment on this on the FAC page persuasive; most readers are indeed likely to know the term. On the other hand, the explanation does matter for those who don't know it, and "backbench" as a term is fairly central to the narrative of this article, more so than "caucus" or even "cabinet". I think the current wording is good. Ucucha 06:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks
How did this pass FA review when so many important figures, including cabinet members, are redlinks? All MLAs are ex officio notable, and should already have had articles. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * FAC reviews this article, not the ones linked from it. That those articles are red-linked does not impend the reader's understanding of this article. Ucucha 20:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just a smidgen disappointed. Heaven knows I'm no expert on Albertan politics, or SoCred history (I'm more a CCF man myself). -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Blue-ing those is on my long-term to-do list, but I don't really enjoy writing stubs, so I want to make sure I have the time to do a proper job of it. I agree that they should all have articles, though. Steve Smith (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://douglassocialcredit.com/resources/resources/alf_hooke_chapter_10.pdf}}
 * In 1937 Social Credit backbenchers' revolt on 2011-05-25 03:11:35, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
 * In 1937 Social Credit backbenchers' revolt on 2011-06-04 15:50:19, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1937 Social Credit backbenchers' revolt. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722095442/http://douglassocialcredit.com/resources/resources/alf_hooke_chapter_10.pdf to http://douglassocialcredit.com/resources/resources/alf_hooke_chapter_10.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 review
Hi and other page-watchers: I have reviewed and edited this article as part of WP:URFA/2020, an initiative to review featured articles promoted before 2016 and bring them back to FA standards. Please check my edits to ensure that I did not inadvertently change the meaning of anything. If you think this article meets FA standards, please mark it as "Satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020B. If you have any questions or concerns, please ping me. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)