Talk:Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett

Another image

 * here's a link to another picture of him in 1962: . Tom B (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but surely it would not be free use what with the dating and all. Ironholds (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Trades Disputes Bill
"Birkett led the Liberal response to the Labour proposal of the Trade Disputes Bill 1931 and "reduced it to tatters", although the bill passed because of the Liberal Party abstaining"

I'm really not sure about this. There's no Trades Disputes Act in the Consolidated Table of the Statutes for 1931, and I can't see anything else that might be it under a different name. Could it perhaps be that it passed the second reading, but didn't progress further? Shimgray | talk | 00:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Bedale or Beldale?
Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett says "... to become a minister under Charles Bedale. In 1905, Beldale suggested... " Art LaPella (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Bedale; fixed. Thanks for finding it. Ironholds (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparent error
The following is a message I just posted on the Talk page for the Main Page; since it points out an inconsistency not only with the main-page summary, but also within this article, I suppose I should also post it here:

There seems to be an error in the summary of main-page summary of the article on Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett, or at least an inconsistency with (and apparently within) the article itself. The main-page summary states: "He was called to the Bar in 1913 and developed a reputation as a barrister able to defend people with almost watertight criminal cases against them, such as in the second of the Brighton trunk murders and the Blazing Car murder." This implies he represented the defendant (i.e. the accused) in the "Blazing Car murder." (Which, by the way, is a double redirect that probably should be fixed, as it redirects to Alfred Rouse, the article on the man convicted of the murder.) The intro to the article Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett also implies that Birkett represented the defendant, though not quite as directly. However, the section Norman_Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett states that "the Crown was represented by Birkett and Richard Elwes," and goes on to describe his cross-examination of the defendant, Mr. Rouse. So there is at least one inconsistency, and possibly two. Or am I reading something wrong? Neutron (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's an error - seems to spring from an initial error in the introduction (which I based the mainpage section on). I'll fix it on the article, not sure how to fix it on the mainpage. Ironholds (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you leave a note at the main-page talk page, in response to mine, one of those who has the ability to change it, will change it. Neutron (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Dennistoun Case
There appears to be a mistake here. According to the report in the Sydney Morning Herald from 26 March 1925 Mrs Dennistoun won the case and was awarded £5,000 damages. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/16201429?searchTerm=Dennistoun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncameron (talk • contribs) 15:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Electoral Career
I have restored previously deleted content, where the editor concerned gave this explanation; "that's one of the most visually disruptive things I've ever seen (happy to provide a screenshot if this is firefox-specific))" I am a firefox user and I did not detect anything that was visually disruptive, so I am not certain of the editor's exact concern. If the concern is simply a dislike for the way the tabulated information was presented, I would point out that this format is standard format on wikipedia for this type of information. I have tweaked the tables to integrate the reference in the customary fashion. Graemp (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you look at the "Return to politics" section you will see (well, I see, at any rate - Firefox 28.0, Xubuntu 13.0.4) that the tables are being pushed out of the way by the images, and thus disrupt the flow of content. Inline images are handled in such a way that the text flows around them, allowing for a continuous reading experience: these tables clearly are not. They actively break the flow of text.
 * This may be standard in the sense of "being the standard way to present this information", but presenting this information in such a prominent way doesn't seem to be the standard at all. A quick check of other political articles in the same conceptual category (large, with lots of text) shows that the information is either not presented (Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Bonar Law, Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden, Clement Attlee), or presented in its own section, presumably to avoid this very problem - see our article on Neville Chamberlain. I won't contest that it's the Usual Way Of Presenting This Information (I work on law articles, not politics articles, so it isn't my area of expertise), but displaying this information at all seems decidedly non-standard, let alone presenting it embedded in the content. Ironholds (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not certain that you and I are having the same visual experience; You say "If you look at the "Return to politics" section you will see that the tables are being pushed out of the way by the images, and thus disrupt the flow of content." I don't see anything that suggests tables, images or text are being pushed away from where they should be.


 * I agree that the tables break the flow of text, but do not agree that this is visually disruptive, and would argue that it is visually enhancing. Their effect on the article is visually to provide the equivalent of a paragraph break, which is I think the correct way for them to be displayed. It is possible for images to be located either side of a table, however, I don't believe in any of these instances, that was appropriate.


 * The examples you give which don't contain any tables relate to more prominent politicians whose electoral record was of less importance to their political career. So it is not surprising that the tables don't appear as there is not the same attention given to their electoral performance in the article. The example you give of Chamberlain where this information is located as a separate section in my view does not assist the narrative or help the chronological flow of the article.


 * The insertion of a constituency election table into an article of a politician is a worthwhile visual enhancement to the process of conveying information. A good example of this was the article on Helen Fraser which last month appeared on the Wikipedia home page. I do not know if there are relevant tables that could be inserted into articles on Lawyers as this is not my area, but do not think they should be excluded on the grounds that text can not be made to flow round them. Graemp (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In order:
 * Clearly we are, then, having a different experience. You don't see the disparity in indentation between different (otherwise identical) electoral result templates?
 * A paragraph break tends not to be the size of a paragraph; these are. I agree that paragraph breaks are great for giving some breathing room, but when that breathing room is a 5th of the screen (and it's not a small screen, I'm on my desktop) that's probably too much.
 * Can you explain how Birkett's electoral record was so important? His role in politics is nothing to do with being a Member of Parliament and everything to do with his dalliances with Cabinet office - membership in Parliament was simply an justification, as the article and the sources make very clear, for any attempts by the Liberals to give him that office. My point is not "we should do it as Chamberlain does it", my point is "all of the articles I've encountered that are to do with politicians, and are at a high level of quality, and contain a large amount of prose, avoid this format". A look here confirms it; almost all of the articles there that are biographies use different formatting. If you want to argue that it's actually a standard, you need to be able to demonstrate it. The article you've surfaced as an example indeed uses this formatting...but given that the boxes were added to that article by you, it is not particularly demonstrative.
 * Re your final point; I agree, it is worthwhile - but not like this. I'm happy to discuss other placement options, such as that used with the Chamberlain article. But at the moment your change is visually disruptive, consisting as it does of a substantial break, both visually and conceptually, in the prose that does not align with the rest of the content. I would note that the example you bring up of your format being in use is to a much smaller article and with much smaller electoral boxes to boot. Ironholds (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are obviously experiencing something odd in the way that your software is displaying this page, which I can not help you with. I can see from your last message how this might influence what you said about it appearing "visually disruptive". But I am getting none of what you describe in your latest post. On this page you have added to your original concern by saying that you don't like the use of tables in this way. Between us, we are unable to point to any uniformity of use of tables, leaving aside any issue of uniformity being a good thing. Now you are raising a further issue relating to the inclusion of the subject's electoral record regardless of how it is being conveyed. I'm not sure it helps to have the discussion widened in this way. It is clear to me that your first and main concern is the overall view of the page. It seems to me as if you have questions relating to your own software to which you have twice referred. I have confirmed that there is nothing wrong with the page layout as I view it on my PC. I'm not sure I can help any more than that. Graemp (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So you're telling me you don't get this problem? Just to be clear; the way you're phrasing your message above makes it sound as if you believe the onus is on me to use different software. If I was using some strange combination of Opera and FreeBSD, this might be the case, but the most popular linux distribution and the latest version of one of the 2 or 3 most popular browsers is probably a combination we should be supporting. In that situation the onus is on the person inserting the content to make sure that it works. No, we are unable to point to any uniform use, but it is very clear from the evidence produced that your usage of it is, for want of a better phrase, a distinct edge case; you have not provided more than one example of an article on the project using the templates in this way, and that example is of limited utility given that you were responsible for inserting the templates. It only proves that this is a uniform use in articles you have created or substantially contributed to. Myself, I consider this a WP:BOLD change that is both disruptive to reading experience and non-standard; in line with the guidelines on the matter, I'm going to revert it for this article until we can either reach consensus with a larger body of users or you can prove to my satisfaction that this change is standard and non-disruptive (which, given the browser breakage, seems unlikely). Ironholds (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can confirm that I do not get the problem that you have screenshot, and yes, if you are having problems seeing it properly then it really is a matter for you. Really, it is none of my business but if you won't take my word for it, you should at least consult another user. I have checked the edit history of this article and note that since I first added these tables back in January, two other identifiable editors have contributed. Neither felt the need to edit/delete the tables or raise any questions relating to them or how the article generally appeared on screen. Perhaps their software performs as mine does. The example of table use I gave was to demonstrate that the use was deemed sufficiently acceptable under the scrutiny of those at Wikipedia involved in vetting articles linked to the Home page and that should have been sufficient enough to deal with any use issues anyone would have. I do not consider that you have adequately demonstrated where my edit has gone against any wikipedia policy and dont believe that by simply referring to WP:BOLD you have done this. Your action to revert the edit before a consensus had been reached was unhelpful and provocative. I have undone your revertion and strongly suggest you consult other users about this matter. I should point out that to date no other editor or user seems to have encountered the problem that you have. Graemp (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

ah...what? I think you may be misunderstanding how "Bold, Revert, Discuss" works; it's not about things that violate policy. The process for that just goes "bold, revert". It's about well-intentioned changes that need discussion before acceptance or revocation, and I would characterise your edit as falling within that category. Just to make my argument completely clear, and so we can refocus on the content rather than anything else:
 * 1) The templates' inclusion is visually disruptive and inconsistent on a major browser on a major operating system. They do not, as my screenshot shows, align clearly. I suspect this is down not to the browser and OS so much as it is down to screen size and resolution, and I would welcome feedback from other users on differently-sized devices as to what their reading experience is like. The argument of "nobody else has complained" is moot; yes, no other editors have complained, but there's been two of them. That's not a good sample, particularly when neither of them have spoken up in support, either. No readers have complained, but the conversion rate from readers to "people who edit talk pages" is ridiculously small, and this is not a highly popular article, so frankly I wouldn't expect positive or negative feedback out of readers directly.
 * 2) The templates' inclusion is disproportionately weighting information. Each of those electoral boxes - and there are four of them - takes up vertical space equivalent to an entire paragraph of prose. These boxes each communicate nothing more than candidate names, parties and vote tallies to do so - things that can be explained in two sentences if needed. I would argue that they are not needed, and that the prominence given to this information is unnecessary: Birkett's electoral record was completely secondary to his political career, which was entirely to do with flirting with high office. His role as a Member of Parliament was inconsequential except as a necessary precursor to said high office.
 * 3) The templates' inclusion is non-standard. I have repeatedly requested examples of this being used in equivalent articles - large, well-filled-out articles on political figures that have been peer reviewed by the community. To date, you have demonstrated one (much smaller, and less reviewed) article where that is the case, and in that case the templates were added by you, and thus do not provide any support for the idea that this is standard. Countering that, all-but-one of the articles I have looked for do not include this information at all, and the one that does includes it in a very different format that avoids causing the visual disruption and weighting problems I mention above.
 * 4) The templates' inclusion has no basis in policy. The Manual of Style table guide, tellingly, does not provide this as an example of an appropriate table - moreover, the tables it does give as examples are either highly stripped-down or designed to be placed at the conclusion of an article, not embedded inline as this one is. In addition, if your argument is that this information is significant (which I would dispute, but that's secondary), the guideline does note that "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not... significant items should normally be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely tabulated."
 * In conclusion, I do not believe that the inclusion of this information in such a prominent, in-line way is justified. If you feel that you can refute these arguments, go right ahead: if you would prefer to get the opinion of one or more third-parties, I can think of a few pretty thoughtful politics-focused editors who could be worth inviting to comment. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. I got the chance to see a screenshot from you in which the only apparent problem was that for some reason, on your PC, one of the tables appeared indented. I agree, we may not in reality be talking about a very large sample, but it is the only sample we have. 2. Your case for not including tables in this article because simple text takes up less space is a case that is equally valid for any article on wikipedia. Your case for not including information about his electoral record, regardless of how it is presented, goes into areas outside of your initial revert and specified reasons. 3. You have made a point about standard use, not one I have made, or believe is appropriate to make. The only thing that is standard is the table template, which I believe is the only relevant aspect. 4. Reading the extracts you pull out from Manual of Style doesn't lead me to conclude that there is anything wrong with including the tables in the article. I think essentially we just have a difference of opinion about using a table alongside text and images in an article. Graemp (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope; I'm happy to use table elements (I wouldn't have a dozen-odd featured lists if I wasn't). I just think that this one is visually disruptive and disproportionately weighted for what it communicates.
 * It's quite clear that we're not going to come to agreement here on our own, so I'm poking Choess and Ealdgyth for their feedback, since they work around political figues (although Ealdgyth prefers hers a millennia or so older, for which I apologise ;p). --Ironholds (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I'm inclined to remove them, simply because I think prose would do a better job of conveying the facts relevant to Birkett. The tables were, I think, designed for use on the individual constituency pages, and so of course they display all the information about the election, some of which is not necessarily topical or to the point here. I do find the break in layout and the lack of flow around the tables just slightly disconcerting, but the real issue for me is that it's not very easy to see, at a glance, what in the table is germane to the surrounding text and what is extraneous. To take the first table as an example, I think I'd rewrite the prose to read something like: "...was elected with a majority of 1,436 votes (6.8%), a feat that was described as an "overwhelming victory" since it represented a swing of 26.2% away from the Conservative Party, which had held the seat since 1910." I think that conveys the salient points of Birkett's electoral appeal without distraction. What do you feel the tables add to this article above and beyond that? Choess (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I was trying to communicate with "disproportionately weighing information"; thank you for expressing it so eruditely :). Ironholds (talk) 05:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition to your grounds for revert, you have put a case for not including Birkett's electoral record because it was not a sufficiently relevant part of his career. I had responded by saying that I don't think it helps to widen the discussion into this more general area. Too much subjectivity exists on this sort of question to enable a consensus to be found. However, you have persisted in arguing this subjective point and while I won't go along with its relevance, it might be helpful for you to know the view of someone else. That particular someone else is Montgomery Hyde, who wrote the biography of Birkett which is substantially sourced in the article. In my copy of the book Hyde spends a fair amount of time detailing the electoral career of Birkett, going into greater detail than the article. So he obviously considered it significant enough. Perhaps, more pertinent to this revertion discussion, Hyde chose to display Birkett's electoral record in tabulated form, exactly as I have in the article, punctuated chronologically through his career, rather than say including the tables as an appendix. It does not seem as if Hyde's publisher thought "that's one of the most visually disruptive things I've ever seen". Graemp (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you don't think that the pertinence of information is relevant in deciding whether we should include it or not, that's a bigger issue, but somewhat secondary: we're now at two who would prefer the content removed or prose-ified, and one who wants to keep it in its current form. What would you think of the compromise position Choess suggests - that is, including the information, but including it as prose? Ironholds (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I note that Choess found the use of tables "just slightly disconcerting" rather than "one of the most visually disruptive things I've ever seen". The article contains a photograph of Birkett at the Nuremberg trials, along with three other people. I'm not sure if anyone would suggest that it is difficult to tell what in the picture is "germane to the surrounding text and what is extraneous". So I am not sure of the exact relevance of this point to the tables. Clearly tables have the ability to convey information in a far easier way than text. They can provide the complete picture, while text can be used to emphasise a particular aspect of that information. If you are prepared to accept the place of tables within the body of an article, I am prepared to make an edit to the article in an attempt to reduce/eliminate instances of the tables breaking the flow of text. Graemp (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Never thought I'd be saying this, but: I have no conceptual problem with tables. Go right ahead. That doesn't mean it'll be sufficient, but you're free to experiment. --Ironholds (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we may be making progress. Given the likely time involved in doing the edit, I think we need to be sure that we are both agreeing the same thing. Earlier you stated "I'm happy to use table elements" to which you have now added "I have no conceptual problem with tables". The statements are very similar but the first did not indicate to me support for a resolution in the same way as the second did. Which means I ought to be wary of "That doesn't mean it'll be sufficient." If indeed you are prepared to accept tables within the body of the article, I think I need you to actually confirm this. Graemp (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with table elements in the body of the article in theory, and you should feel free to make your experimental change - although it'd probably be best you explain what it is before doing it, if it's that substantial, so that we don't waste your time by asking you to try implementing it and then going "oh, we don't like it, change it back". Ironholds (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Our differences are with Section 2 which is currently broken down as follows;
 * 2 Practice at the Bar and time as a Member of Parliament
 * 3 Judicial work
 * I have created a large number of biographies of politicians and have nearly always put their political career and professional career in separate sections. Birkett's careers are intermingled in section 2, retaining a degree of chronologicality with his professional career being continued into section 3. I would like to re-organise as follows;
 * 2 Practice at the Bar
 * 3 Political career
 * 4 Judicial work
 * This retains a degree of chronology, while uncluttering the two types of career allowing for an easier to follow narrative. This would also move all of the tables into new section 3. The subsections in section 3 would then be re-organised to more accurately reflect the stages in his political career with each subsection culminating in an election campaign where the table appears at the end of the subsection.
 * This would restore the free-flowing nature of the text which would only be broken in the places where subheadings would have broken it anyway. I think you will much prefer this, or should I say "we". Graemp (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That absolutely solves for the problem of the visual disruption, and I appreciate that, but it completely ignores the issue of prominence; I assumed the idea was to solve for both (I apologise for wasting your time :/). Again, I have no issue with tables - I have 13 featured lists! - but the tables should be communicating something that is both relevant to the article and best communicated through a table, and I agree with User:Choess's rather eruditely-expressed opinion above that a table is not the best form to display this information in. Hyde, his publisher or his editor may disagree; that's fine. None of them are in this conversation, and we are not limited to or guided by display formats that a specific author found appropriate in the 1960s. If you consider this information important and valuable, try to work it into prose; Choess has provided an example above of how that could be done. Ironholds (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your original stated reason to revert dealt only with "visual disruption". You have subsequently explained what you meant by that and I have provided you with a resolution to that issue which you believe addresses that concern. Graemp (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And I very much appreciate that, but my longer explanation made clear that there are more than visual concerns at my end. Ironholds (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ironholds. The table break up the flow of prose (contrary to WP:EMBED  Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another. It is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain).

They should at the very least be moved to a separate section, or preferably removed. Note that I am engaged in a similar discussion with Graemp at Talk:Adam Rolland Rainy, and alos at Talk:Sir Ellis Ellis-Griffith,_1st_Baronet.

If Graemp wants to persist with this, we need a centralised discussion somewhere. I suggest an RFC at WT:UKPOLITICS. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett. 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/20120628112650/http://www.hdgc.co.uk/the-course1 to http://www.hdgc.co.uk/the-course1

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) 22:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Mosley mostly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Mosley

Birkett's interview with Mosley, Oswald might maybe merit a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.240.3.252 (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

FAR needed
The article depends largely on a single source from the 1960s. Other sources need to be cited for balance and comprehensiveness. For example, this book on Birkett's involvement in a particular legal case, here and here for his influence on advocacy in English courts, here for his influence on manslaughter law, and any number of sources about the Nuremberg trial. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)