Divided

[Dispose1]

Suppose there is a group of 100 people and their opinions were asked about some issue (yes and no):

For two scenarios of (49 yes, 51 no) and (90 yes, 10 no), both of these applicable?

"The group is narrowly divided."
"The group is widely divided."

[SoothingDave]

No.

"Widely divided" seems odd.

[CarloSsS]

Suppose there is a group of 100 people and their opinions were asked about some issue (yes and no):

For two scenarios of (49 yes, 51 no) and (90 yes, 10 no), both of these applicable?

"The group is narrowly divided."
"The group is widely divided."

NOT A TEACHER

One of the common collocations with "divided" is "deeply". Why not use that?

[Barb_D]

If you have 100 people and 50 think they should raise taxes and not cut a dime in spending but the other 50 want to slash spending and not raise taxes by a dime, they are deeply divided on how to proceed. There is no middle ground when people are deeply divided, even when they are close in numbers.

[Dispose1]

articles.latimes.com/1989-01-24/news/mn-984_1_death-sentence
"A widely divided state Supreme Court on Monday overturned the death sentence of a Fresno County man convicted of murdering his estranged wife to avoid paying nearly $49,000 he owed her in a divorce settlement.
The justices, filing four separate opinions, upheld the conviction but, by a vote of 4 to 3, ordered a new penalty trial for Peter Edelbacher, 33, found guilty of murder for financial gain in the slaying of Lela Schwartz-Edelbacher, 25, in April, 1981."

concordmonitor.com/article/338190/political-spending-ban-rejected
"A narrowly divided Supreme Court yesterday reaffirmed its landmark 2010 decision allowing corporations to spend unlimited money on elections, deciding 5-4 that a state court was wrong to uphold Montana's century-old ban on political spending by businesses. "

What do "widely divided" and "narrowly divided" mean in these examples?

[5jj]

articles.latimes.com/1989-01-24/news/mn-984_1_death-sentence
"A widely divided state Supreme Court on Monday overturned the death sentence of a Fresno County man convicted of murdering his estranged wife to avoid paying nearly $49,000 he owed her in a divorce settlement.
The justices, filing four separate opinions, upheld the conviction but, by a vote of 4 to 3, ordered a new penalty trial for Peter Edelbacher, 33, found guilty of murder for financial gain in the slaying of Lela Schwartz-Edelbacher, 25, in April, 1981."

I agree with SoothingDave; 'widely divided' sounds very strange. I really don't see what it is supposed to mean here.

[Barb_D]

They filed four separate opinions. There were at least four non-overlapping ways they looked at it, so this is one time when this otherwise unusual pairing of "widely divided" works, at least for me.

[5jj]

They filed four separate opinions. There were at least four non-overlapping ways they looked at it, so this is one time when this otherwise unusual pairing of "widely divided" works, at least for me.

Ah. That makes sense to me, now.