Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ministerial by-election/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 August 2023 [1].

Ministerial by-election edit

Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an oddity of the British constitution from the 18th to the 20th century. Separating the executive from the legislative seems like a very good idea, especially when the executive is not elected while the legislature is. While Americans took such a separation to its logical conclusion by fully banning executive-legislative fusion (with the rule-proving exception of the VP), the British saw keeping the ministry in the legislature as a good thing so adopted a half-measure rule that a legislator couldn't become a minister, but a minister could become a legislator. Thus was born the practice of the "ministerial by-election", where a minister got automatically booted from Parliament but could rejoin when he got freshly elected to it. It was hoped that this would serve as a check on the executive by allowing people in a certain constituency to vote on ministerial appointments.

But alas, even in the 18th century, this practice quickly became a formality as convention became to refrain from contesting these elections, and except for certain times of upheaval nobody quite seriously contested them. It also didn't help that when a party formed a fresh government from a general election, the ministers thereby empowered had to run for yet more elections in the immediately following weeks. These difficulties must be seen in the context of a time where parliaments could and often did last as long as seven years, so a stale government could be challenged in the meantime by these elections. Some of the thornier parts of the practice were reformed over time – a change in a minister's portfolio did not cause a by-election after 1867, the need for a minister to undergo a new by-election was suspended during the First World War, and they were abolished altogether within nine months of a general election after 1919. Nevertheless, they were ever an inconvenience to governments, and could make or break especially fragile governments in both Britain and the parts of the Empire where such by-elections were used (as George Elmslie and Arthur Meighen can attest), so as Parliament became shorter-lived the whole concept of such by-elections underwent more and more scrutiny, before they were abolished altogether in 1926 in Britain and by 1947 in the rest of the Empire – Western Australia was the last holdout, having had a unique tradition of actually contesting its elections and trailing the rest of the continent by 30 years.

This is a big reach out of my comfort zone, and I thank @Wehwalt and Sm8900 for their feedback in this article's peer review. I'll also ping @Horserice and Harrias from the peer review. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
Only issue is the collapsed infoboxes, which violate MOS:COLLAPSE, and I know it's discouraged to use multiple infoboxes in one article or infoboxes about a topic not synonymous with the article subject. (t · c) buidhe 01:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a big enough issue I can remove both infoboxes, but the collapsing is to make sure that they don't run each other over, and neither Act warrants its own article so IMO counts as "synonymous" for these intents and purposes. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
tbh I'm not sure what the infoboxes are adding for the reader. Any information not cited in the main text will also need an in-line citation.
On an unrelated point, I don't think that the Heritage Foundation is a reliable source, let alone a high quality one. (t · c) buidhe 04:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points to both; I'm sure minor UK legislation can make do without the infoboxes, and I've replaced the Heritage Foundation with a primary, but better, source. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

I left detailed comments at the peer review. I've given it a quick glance over, all that I had time for tonight. Somewhat following on from my previous comments, I'd note:

  • It seems to me worth mentioning that Churchill fell to a ministerial by-election in 1908. I'm not sure if he was the only future British prime minister to have this happen, but there can't be many. He was then elected for a safe seat.
  • I see, possibly in response to my previous comments, that you mention that the Province of Canada had ministerial by-elections. But I still see no mention of the 1858 incident or "Double Shuffle" in which Macdonald used the requirement to cause the government to fall and take control of the legislature (as detailed in his article), as he did again in 1863-64. Behind the King-Byng affair, these are probably the most prominent instance where this requirement came into play in Canadian history.
    • Added both stories. I'm a bit unwilling to cram this article with anecdotes, but these were one sentence each so perhaps it's not as big an issue. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments as I have time. I guess what I'm looking for reassurance on is the comprehensive requirement of WP:WIAFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, my opinion is that the article needs to cover how ministerial by-elections worked and evolved, with some illustrative examples, to be comprehensive. It is not a list of prominent ministerial by-elections and the absence of any particular historical case is not indicative of a lack of coverage. I would tentatively go further and suggest that their may be unintended consequences of attempting to incorporate such a list. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's about what I figured. Note that I've supported on all except comprehensiveness. I will continue to monitor to see if I can give an unqualified endorsement. Wehwalt (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to be fleshed out more and I'll Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by indopug edit

Quick comment for now: you have a tendency to write very long sentences, exemplified by the lead sentence, which is 67 words long. A quick google search tells me 25 words is the optimal sentence length (and 30 the maximum), but here you can routinely see double that.

  • I've looked around and saw a few semicolons that I was able to "promote" to periods/full stops, splitting a few sentences into two, and can look for some more. On the other hand, I don't know if reducing many of the 40-word sentences is feasible, but I hope that my judicious use of punctuation and clauses improves readability in spite of that. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC) (For reference, my most recent FA, Lake Street Transfer station, routinely has forty-word sentences and even a seventy-word sentence, so I don't think the pure word count of a sentence is necessarily a good indicator of its suitability. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC))[reply]

You should add some pics (maybe this for starters?). —indopug (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This isn't an especially illustrable concept (there used to be infoboxes for the amendment and repeal acts, but those were removed), but I've added the Act of Settlement image, which hopefully passes the image review. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SC

I'm greatly surprised to see no mention of the suffragettes or the Ladies National Association for the Repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts, both of which groups used the existence of ministerial by-elections for further their cause. Their success in either getting ministerial candidates removed or their majorities drastically reduced, or just disrupting the proceedings, was one of the causes the practice was discontinued. - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mentioned the WSPU; re-reading Pugh, it appears that their effectiveness at getting ministers removed seems to have been exaggerated (perhaps the disruption was more important?). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think disruption was certainly part of the aim - I'll try and dig out some of my sources this weekend, but I'm not sure if they're still here or in storage. There is some mention of the LNA actions in the final paragraph of this section. I think I still have the sources if you think any of this is of use. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably also look at including Chris Bryant's Parliament - The Biography. Volume 2: Reform and Douglas Carswell's Rebel: how to Overthrow the Emerging Oligarchy, both of which have excellent information about the by-elections, both specific and as background. - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support from Tim riley edit

I have only had time for a quick canter through the British section of the article, and I aim to return for a more leisurely and thorough reading soon. Meanwhile, three points that caught my eye:

  • In 1680, the House of Commons of England unanimously resolved ... This was a reaction to the actions of monarchs such as James II – as James did not become king until 1685 I think this opening needs a bit of work.
  • Additionally, note that the source for the above says that the 1680 resolution was adopted nemine contradicente which is not quite the same as unanimously – it means nobody voted against rather than that everybody voted for.
  • Carswell … cynically asserted that their abolition was as much about the fear of the nascent Labour – the adverb seems to me distinctly editorial.

More shortly, I hope. Tim riley talk 10:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is Carswell's cynicism, not Wikipedia's. If you feel that reading Carswell as cynical is unwarranted from the relevant text I'd be happy to remove that word as well. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
  • Capitalisation
  • I am well aware that attempting to apply capitalisation consistently is an infallible way of going insane, and I do not press the point, but I wonder why, e.g., Cabinet is (sometimes) capitalised as are Army and Navy and (sometimes) Parliament but members of parliament are not or why prime minister is not but Colonial Secretary, Treasurer, Auditor General, Attorney General and Solicitor General are.
  • Lead
  • "From 1708 to 1926, members of parliament (MPs) of the House of Commons of Great Britain (and later the United Kingdom) automatically vacated their seats when made ministers in Cabinet" – I wonder about the two words at the end of this sentence. I have a facsimile of Whitaker's Almanack for 1900 in front of me, and the list of government ministers (p. 151) has 23 ministers in the cabinet and 33 ministers not in the cabinet. From the main body of the text I infer that any MP appointed to a government office, whether in the cabinet or not, would have to face a by-election.
    • As the body states, some offices required by-election, others were barred from the Commons completely. I simply replaced "Cabinet" by "government".
  • Britain
  • "This nominally would provide a form of government quite similar to that of the United States" – as we are in 1701 it might be as well to make it clear that the American model was in the future
  • "By the mid-19th century, the solidification of responsible government" – I am not at all sure what this means
    • Essentially, it means that the government had become de facto responsible to Parliament rather than to the monarch, which was not necessarily the case in the 18th century.
  • "made any concern of ministers being more loyal" – curious preposition: do you mean "concern about"?
    • Changed to "fear of"
  • Reform and abolition
  • "Aside from the embarrassment" – unexpected AmE "aside" rather than the usual BrE "apart".
    • Subtle, but done.
  • "could likely be lost" – ditto: "likely" rather than "probably" is not the customary BrE form
    • To my American ears, at least, "probably" means that a loss would, in fact, happen barring a miracle rather than be simply more likely than not. I considered changing it to "possibly", but I still think "likely" better encapsulates the "distinct possibility" edge without being presumptuous about how likely a loss would be.
  • "although it is dubious how much this was an issue in practice" – says who?
    • Says Pugh, duly elaborated.
  • "Arthur Balfour approached prime minister Henry Campbell-Bannerman" – clunky false title that can be remedied with a definite article
  • "An exception was The Times, who" – are newspapers treated as people rather than insensible objects? "Which" rather than "who" might be more natural here
  • "but due to the government's unpopularity" – in AmE "due to" is widely accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer
  • Was vaguely familiar with that, done.
  • "aggrieved by various betrayals of the ministry" – more than a bit tendentious without examples and citations
  • I don't want to pad the sentence with detailed otherwise-irrelevant examples, so changed to "felt betrayed by various actions of the ministry".
  • "In that year, the second Baldwin ministry stood at a by-election" – do ministries stand at by-elections?
    • In an arguable manner of speaking; changed to "stoodfielded a candidate at" if that's not even worse.
  • "introduced by Conservative backbencher Christopher Clayton" – another false title, easily remedied

More to come. Meanwhile I hope these suggestions are of use. Tim riley talk 21:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comments on the prose of the rest of the article and as I am 100% ignorant about the contents of the Canadian, Australian and elsewhere sections, I'll sign off for now. So far as the British section of the article is concerned I think it is of FA quality – we can agree to differ about the minor drafting points outstanding from the above exchanges – but I'll wait to see if there are comments from better-informed reviewers about the other sections before I sign up to supporting. I'll put this review page on my watchlist and await developments. Tim riley talk 11:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now supporting: see below. Tim riley talk 22:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

  • Good evening @Tim riley, SchroCat, Indopug, and Wehwalt: is there more to come on this one? I ask because it is coming up to its three-week mark with no indications of support, which causes coordinators to start thinking dark thoughts about timing out. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greetings, Gog! This seems to me an important and impressive article, and though I'd have preferred to wait to see what reviewers better informed than I about the colonial sections think, your note leads me to add my support, taking the non-Brit sections at their (impressive) face value Tim riley talk 22:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that like others, I'm waiting for someone to take the plunge. In particular, I'm waiting for a reviewer more familiar with the topic area than I am to vouch for its comprehensiveness. Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add my support in view of Tim's, and along the same lines. and in spite of my concerns. Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I support on all criteria except comprehensiveness, on which I'm not certain and am waiting for further opinions.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So far as the British section is concerned I am satisfied that it is comprehensive and complete. (I even blew the dust off my old copy of Erskine May to check.) I am happy to assume the same comprehensiveness applies to the non-British sections of the article. Tim riley talk 07:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "abolished in 1926 with a private member's bill". I would say "by" rather than "with".
    • Done.
  • "Within the British Empire, the Irish Free State, the Union of South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, India, and New Zealand never had ministerial by-elections." This implies that the Irish Free State was part of the British Empire, which is technically correct as it was a dominion, but I think still better avoided.
    • I just Gordian-ed the phrase altogether, hopefully the British-adjacent nature of those countries is still implied by the following non-Westminster paragraph.
  • "Australia never had such elections federally, but several states had them before the first half of the 20th century; Western Australia was the last jurisdiction in the empire to maintain such elections, finally abolishing them in 1947." "before the first half of the 20th century" is an odd wording. If you mean from the second half of the nineteenth century, I think it would be better to say so.
    • Changed to "prior to the 20th century".
  • "As a rule, the requirement to stand in a by-election only applied when an elected legislator was first appointed to a portfolio." What does "As a rule" mean here - that there were exceptions?
    • Removed.
  • "It was not unusual for a minor MP". I do not think "minor" is the right word here. Presumably there were cases of "major" MPs resigning for health reasons, old age, etc.
    • I think that it is appropriate to mention that minor MPs who had no other reasons to resign were expected to yield their seats so that a minister might run for re-election.
  • "minor" is pejorative and POV, and does not reflect the source, which describes MPs who resigned as "self-denying", and cites Samuel Plimsoll, a major figure who designed the Plimsoll line. He resigned because he thought that a minister could pursue shipping reform more effectively than a backbench MP, and was offered 30 constituencies at the following election. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gordianed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whereas only three defeats" I do not think "whereas" is the right word when you are saying defeats were rare in one period and even rarer in the next.
    • Changed to "and".
  • "The most common cause for a failure of re-election in this era was the ineligibility of the new minister to sit in the Commons, particularly by appointment to the Lords." This was surely a decision to go by an alternative route rather than a failure. Also, it contradicts the statement in the lead that a minister on appointment had to contest the ensuing byelection.
    • It does not contradict that sentence, since the requirement for by-election was indeed mandatory for a minister to rejoin the Commons (which I believe is implied in the lead); since "non-reelection" is not really a word I think "failure of re-election" is the best way to describe it even though it wasn't really a career failure.
  • "automatically vacated their seats when made ministers in government and had to rejoin the house by successfully contesting a by-election;" This says that ministers always has to contest a seat, not only if they wished to remain in the Commons. It needs clarifying. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The principle of ministerial by-elections was not however under attack, although Disraeli disputed the rationale of holding ministerial appointments publicly accountable." You say that the principle was not under attack but it does seem to be in the second half of the sentence and in the next paragraph.
    • Only the specific rationale of "holding ministers accountable", not the idea of ministerial by-elections themselves, unless the earlier challenges by Russell, Amberley, and Bury.
  • "Despite exuberance from the frontbench, Liberal and Irish Nationalist backbenchers, who felt betrayed by various actions of the ministry, attacked the acts' rationale as the Commons was chronically underworked during the war." What does "Despite exuberance from the frontbench" mean here?
    • It means that the frontbench were eager to get a memorandum, whereas the backbenches felt otherwise. It might be a bit NPOV to say that the Commons actually was underworked during the war, so I just changed it to say that that was the backbench's claim.
  • "Contrary to popular beliefs that Labour either advocated for or opposed the elections' abolition, Labour were constitutionally conservative in the 1920s and most Labour MPs abstained from voting on the 1926 bill". This seems a bit odd on two counts. Were there really enough people with an opinion on Labour's stance to amount to "popular beliefs"? The comment also implies that opposing and supporting the bill were both radical views.
    • Well, "popular" is a relative term given this niche topic, but Pugh felt the need to debunk them in his work so I felt the article should as well. I can also see where the implication of both-sides radicalism arises, but see no way of fixing that without fatally undermining the sentence.
  • "and de facto resignation from the Commons". de facto seems to me both inaccurate and unnecessary.
    • Actual, de jure resignation from the House was and is illegal, so I think it's appropriate.
  • "cynically asserted that their abolition was as much about the fear of the nascent Labour as it was about the convenience of the government." "cynically" is POV and it should be "the nascent Labour party".
    • As said earlier, that's Carswell's cynicism, not Wikipedia's. If you feel that labelling him as cynical is unwarranted from the text I'd be happy to remove it. In any event I've changed it to "organised labour" to more closely follow the text.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first British colony to achieve responsible government was Nova Scotia, who received it on 8 January 1848." I think it should be "which" not "who".
    • Done
  • "George Elmslie became premier in December 1913 from a split in the Liberal Party allowing his Laborites to form a government." I had to read the Elmslie article in order to understand this. Maybe "George Elmslie was appointed premier by the governor in December 1913 after the Liberal premier resigned following a split in his party."
    • Changed to "owing to a split in the Liberal Party that allowed his Laborites to form a government".
  • For the USA you cite clauses in the original constitution of 1787, but these have been amended. For example, you say "For senators in particular, a state's governor may appoint a temporary successor until a by-election is held." But the 1913 amendment allows states latitude on the rules. Some give the governor no power and some allow the replacement to serve until the next regular senatorial elections. See [2]. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks fine apart from citations of the original US constitution. I have pointed out one case where the rules have been altered and the same probably applies to the others. You need a more up to date source in all cases. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Reviewing this version, spot-check only upon request. Source formatting seems consistent and the requisite information seems to be present. What are the "Statutes of the Province of Canada " and the "Rhodesia letter patent"? Quite a lot of primary sources but it seems their use is appropriate. Why is Douglas Carswell's opinion so important as to get a few sentences? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Statutes and Rhodesian letters patent are exactly what they sound like, primary sources passed by the Canadian legislature and Whitehall, respectively. As for Carswell, SC referred me to him and I felt that his retrospective opinion on the practice, one of the few that recall it in a positive light, bears mentioning. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say, this sounds like giving undue weight to someone's opinion. If it were representative of a commonly held viewpoint (something I'd want a citation on) it might be OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's certainly a fair point; I was thinking it would be good to include besides the opinions of The Times and statistical analysis, but those are supported by secondary sources unlike Carswell. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, I am not sure if this sufficiently addresses your comment. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is indication that Carswell's viewpoint is reasonably widely shared or mentioned by reliable sources, it can stay. Otherwise it should probably be left off. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Carswell's statements might be in contradiction of the customs that rendered ministerial by-elections moot in practice, and in the absence of other supporting viewpoints towards that position, I have removed the material. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, is there more to come here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gog the Mild (talk • contribs)
Seems like this passes, with usual caveats about my unfamiliarity with the topic and lack of spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ministerial_by-election/archive1&oldid=1172259112"