Talk:2019 British prorogation controversy

New article
thanks for setting up this article. this looks good. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Adam Price/impeachment
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, 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)
 * Price's piece on the HuffPost web site it headed Opinion, so is clearly seen as "opinion" by the web site publishers. Contested wording should not be restored without discussion per WP:BRD, and without consensus to keep should be removed. I prefer my wording, but let's wait to see if others have a view - and perhaps, in the meantime, you could remove the paragraph again until this is settled. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The piece is in the opinion section to differentiate it from news copy written by their own staff or supplied press agencies. Some common sense is needed when evaluating the reliability of sources; for example, LabourList is, officially, a blog, and this article is in the comment section, but it's also patently an unimpeachable (heh) source for the statement "Labour are proposing an infrastructure fund worth £250bn over ten years". Sceptre (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * there is another problem with this content. I tried to find reliable news sources reporting this story of 15 September - and couldn't find any. If there aren't any, that would mean that it is being given undue weight, and thus conflicts with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Please remove it - or provide some reliable news sources to support it. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed Price's opinion for now, pending due weight being demonstrated by RS coverage. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Price is the leader of a major party, it's not as if he's some minor backbench councillor in the sticks. With the rarity of the impeachment procedure (only two serious proposals have been made since the Second World War), I personally believe that's enough to satisfy UNDUE. Sceptre (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * it doesn't matter who Price is, it is whether his 15 September view has been published by any reliable secondary sources that matters here. Have you found any yet? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with @Sceptre on this. clear and definitive statements that are contained in published articles by noted elected officials, such as Adam Price, are substantive and notable, and are valid for inclusion here. if they are labeled as "Opinion" by some printed publication, it is only to distinguish those articles from the other articles in that publication that are simply meant to convey the news.
 * with that said, if additional sources exist for the statement by Price, there is nothing wrong with trying to include those as well in order to strengthen the entry. Sm8900 (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * we are not talking about notability, we are talking about due weight. That is confirmed by weight of reliable secondary sources covering it. Currently we have none, so we can conclude the opinion is being given undue weight. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Price article is a reliable source; that's all that matters. The notability guideline does not apply to the content of articles, and primary sources are acceptable if used with care; if we banned primary sources altogether, we'd have to remove all of the things sourced to Hansard. In any case, the issue of Plaid supporting impeachment of Johnson if he breaks the law has received coverage in reliable sources; this is just Price saying it applies to prorogation as well as EU(W)(2)A. Sceptre (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * the Price article is an opinion piece, so not subject to the same editorial oversight as a news item on the same website, so I would suggest that it is only suitable to document his opinions in the article about himself. And as we are not discussing notability, but whether a view has been given undue weight in an article, your notability links and comments are irrelevant. A primary source is only okay in this context if it supplements secondary sources, as it is the secondary sources that confirm due weight. If his views were important then there would be no problem finding secondary sources for them - wouldn't you agree? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Something written by Adam Price is a reliable source for sourcing what Adam Price says, and by virtue of his office, is a reliable source for what Plaid Cymru policy is; see also, the LabourList example upthread. Plaid have said, and this is covered by reliable sources, that they would support impeachment if Johnson broke the law; the Price piece is a reliable source for clarification. (Also, for what it's worth, comment pieces on these sorts of sites do have editorial oversight). Sceptre (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * you are still missing the point. The point is about weight. A view, even from a party leader, only carries weight (in the Wikipedia "due weight" sense) if it is reported by reliable sources other than that written by the holder of the view. Has this view about prorogation, made on 15 September, been reported by another RS? If it has then that source should be added, if not, then why do you it is weighty enough for Wikipedia? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A major party and its leader calling for impeachment is almost certainly due weight, Plaid's push for impeachment if Johnson breaks the law (which Price has since clarified explicitly applies to if prorogation is found to be unlawful too) has been reported in RSes, and you're twisting yourself in knots trying to convince yourself otherwise. Sceptre (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * it isn't Plaid's view about the requirement for the PM to ask for an extension to Article 50 that is the problem here, it is that no other RSes have reported Price's opinion about the prorogation issue. If no-one else reports it then it hardly qualifies for cover here. The answer is to find another RS covering it, or remove it. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Plaid says that Johnson should be impeached if he breaks the law. That's covered in reliable sources. The leader of Plaid then says that applies to a possible Supreme Court ruling. What exactly is the problem? To reiterate: impeachment isn't Price's opinion, it's Plaids opinion. Sceptre' (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is, as has been repeated over and over above, and repeatedly ignored, is that undue weight - i.e. weight that is disproportionate to the RS cover it has received (which seems to be none) - has been given to Price's 15 September comments. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Your view that Price's comments shouldn't be taken in the round as a "oh, by the way, just in case it wasn't obvious" clarification—which is blindingly obvious if you read the article from yesterday—is one that is incredibly hard to justify. Like I've said multiple times: a major party calling for the process of impeachment to be used is newsworthy in itself, and the issue of prorogation cannot be divorced from the issue of EU(W)(2)A, and reliable secondary sources bear those assertions out. Sceptre (talk) 20:52, 16 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)
 * I appreciate your replies on that. We can look for additional reliable sources to provide context and due weight for this. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * by the way, we can also use this talk page to gradually add possible sources as we may find them. Sm8900 (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

British or United Kingdom?
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)
 * "British" is the demonym for the UK (e.g. "the Parliament of the United Kingdom is the British legislature"); see also 2008–09 Canadian parliamentary dispute. Sceptre (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Controversy?
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)


 * Why was this article even called "Controversy" in the first place? The prorogation actually happened, and a NPOV title should just name the event that happened.  "Controversy" should never have been more than a section within an article about the prorogation.


 * If at some point the article is decided to be worth splitting, then sure, "Controversy" could sense as part of a separate article title. (This is not a call for POV forking or other no-nos, I am talking about a by-the-book splitting.) 2607:F470:6:2001:C92F:F568:9359:4026 (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The controversy was about the constitutionality and morality of prorogation; just because the Supreme Court ruled one way doesn't mean it didn't happen! Although I don't like controversy sections (as they tend to lead to POV forks), I think "controversy" is okay for an article title because that's what it was; see: Investiture Controversy, Leibniz–Newton calculus controversy. I'm open to another title. Sceptre (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is what the controversy was about. Meanwhile, you have not addressed the point that this article should be named after the event itself.  The event itself was not a controversy.  The event was an event.  But it was controversial.
 * Your examples are irrelevant. There is no particular event to which the two controversies you listed can be tied to.  Here, there is one particular event, which has a lot of controversy attached to it.  The particular event is what this article should be named. 2607:F470:6:1001:C92F:F568:9359:4026 (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If it was just the singular event of prorogation, I'd agree with you; the controversy spans further than that (prorogation being a threat all year, relevant questions regarding constitutionality and morality of suspending Parliament for so long, the legal case, etc). That's what makes "controversy" an accurate description, although I understand if it's not everyone's cup of tea. Sceptre (talk) 21:59, 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)
 * Just because a judicial body has ruled on the legal state of affairs doesn't mean that the actual state of affairs. Wikipedia should focus on the latter over the former when they are in conflict. If we didn't, then we'd be saying without qualification that Henry VIII only had three wives, even though it's a historical fact that he was married to Anne Boleyn. Sceptre (talk) 19:43, 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)


 * I suppose it is controversial in the sense it sets a precedent to overrule one of the few legal powers that the Queen (and, naturally, her successors) would be able to use if deemed inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.111.198 (talk) 06:33, 25 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 Crisis31.205.43.193 (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:INTEXT
[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)
 * no, it is sourced to an RS, which was reporting what an apparently non-RS had reported. That gives the reader the background to help inform the credibilty they give the info. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If they know that The Sunday Mail is (un)reliable? Look at it from the point of view of a reader not steeped in UK media. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Title
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)
 * You'd probably be better to ask how many British prorogation controversies have occurred full stop. Parliament is frequently prorogued but rarely has it caused such excitement. This is Paul (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

"This article is part of a series about Boris Johnston"
As though it were a personal event... ~ R.T.G 09:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a personal event, but certainly one in which he plays a central role. This is Paul (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is about Johnson’s premiership, and one of the current defining moments of it. It’s actually POV pushing to suggest that, in contradiction to reliable sources, court rulings, and our own eyes, Johnson was just an innocent passenger as your edit summary seems to imply, . Sceptre (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * On the article, Prorogation in the United Kingdom, the point of view I am trying to press is particularly apparent. The main body of the article is in the section "Notable prorogations" (there is no defining list here on the encyclopaedia or immediately apparent from a cursory websearch as regards extra-ordinary examples, however..). The section lists six notable prorogations. The first two are 17th century actions defined here as actions by the kings (Charles I and II) without any reference to advice whatsoever, archaic history. The next two bring us closer to the modern age, 1831 and 1948. 1831 is attributed as "...the government urged..". 1948 does not detail any specific advisors. Then we have a prorogation in 1997 attributed personally to John Major. Now all of a sudden the government isn't even in it. Neither is the queen. That's not how this thing works no matter how many shortened versions are published. Now that is clear. You can go back to your populism in unwitting service of your enemies (Oh my goodness was that a view from a point?). You are damned to righteousness, and it was. ~ R.T.G 22:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And your point is what exactly? Whether we agree or disagree with what happened, Boris Johnson instigated this situation and so it becomes an episode in his political career. Consequently it becomes part of a series of related articles on Wikipedia, all of which concern the man. This is Paul (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and to say that Johnson had no role in the prorogation is tantamount to accusing Johnson of perjury. These are some choice quotes from the Supreme Court ruling:
 * "We know that in approving the prorogation, Her Majesty was acting on the advice of the Prime Minister." (para. 15)
 * "The Prime Minister ticked “Yes” to the recommendation that his PPS approach the Palace with a request for prorogation to begin within the period Monday 9th September to Thursday 12th September and for a Queen’s Speech on Monday 14th October." (para. 17, describing submitted evidence)
 * The ceremony of prorogation is just that: ceremony. Although the ceremony was undertaken by the Queen and other people with more highfalutin job titles such as "Lord President of the Privy Council", the practical matters were, as reliable sources state (see Swinford/Zeffman), have a firm genesis within the Johnson–da Costa–Cummings circle before being handed off to Bernard and Sir Humphrey to work out the logistics with the Palace. It is an unassailable fact that was confirmed in a court of law that Johnson was—if not personally, then certainly at least conventionally—responsible for the prorogation. Sceptre (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "Convention", or tradition, used as a guide to reason, without actual reason, is an enemy of reason, and the convention here is as much as anything else to say so. Certainly, there is no reason other than the sakes of target and glory, to ignore the fuller body at work here. It's insufficient, and there, you thought I was trying to take away from it. You throw your trust into these people today who you know tomorrow you will be claiming should never be outrightly trusted. It is hypocritical and until we can face these finer points of what the world means, we will have to turn on them at regular intervals, which is not nearly as simple and easy as it might at first seem (apparent). This is part of a series on the present office. Boris head is, as you say, just a convention, and they give it to you because, as was (expletives) obvious only yesterday, that they aren't too worried what you do with him. He's put on a bit of a show actually. (expletives). Steer clear of the Trump show will you, especially if you think arising it will make a fine example. ~ R.T.G 05:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * …Parklife? Sceptre (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Is it because I'm black", but don't be fooled, the original skinheads were reggae and ska fans. ~ R.T.G 06:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "be thankful for what you got", it just plays them, ~ R.T.G 07:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * References, ~ R.T.G 07:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I can't fault your choice of music but I still don't know what the hell you're going on about. This is Paul (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is why I replied with "Parklife"; it's a habit I picked up from a friend who would quote-tweet that with bargain-bin philosophy of the type Phil Daniels would proffer in the song. Sceptre (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I really love that Randy Crawford song, "One Day I'll Fly Away". Maybe it's her fault... ✅ ~ R.T.G 06:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Self-coup
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Self-coup. Has the UK suffered a coup d'etat? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Confusing given court ruling
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.' 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. --Cedderstk 18:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)