Talk:Winter of Discontent

Contradiction

The lead has a different account of the coining of the name to the section on coining of the name. The lead says it was "applied to the events of the winter by the then editor of The Sun, Larry Lamb, in an editorial", while the section says "its first use in a newspaper was in the London Evening Standard in late 1978." Neither statement is sourced. SilkTork *^YES! 12:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorted. SilkTork *^YES! 16:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Would it be possible to use a picture of e.g. a picket line or similar strike-related event from the period? Leading with a picture of the bloke who happened to be PM at the time is a bit too general, perhaps. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find free photos, but here are some photos as external links. Archive TGCP (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Systemic Bias

This article was anonymously flagged with the systemic bias template without any attempt to discuss the accusation on the talk page. Please attempt to gain consensus before you add a controversial template to an article or at least discuss your concerns on the talk page so that they may be discussed and/or addressed in the article itself.

For now I am removing the template until such time as a proper discussion and/or consensus has been reached. 86.27.198.226 (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(restored after deletion by next poster)

NPOV

The article contains emotive non-neutral language in many places e.g. "The most notorious action..."

Claims are made which are misleading e.g. "...began an overtime ban in support of rises of up to 40%" The words "up to" imply that this is an extreme case quoted out of context, with no original source available for a reader to gain an accurate picture.

Headings are inappropriate for a neutral article e.g. "'Crisis? What crisis?'"

Extensive rewriting is required, but I would suggest the citations issue is resolved first to avoid the risk of spending time rewriting sections which may turn out to be false.

Please do not remove the POV tag until the issue is resolved.

Next time perhaps edit the article yourself? It is quicker than placing an NPOV tag, and certainly more acceptable than making someone else do the work for you. You could have "fixed it" in the same time as was spent writing these posts and adding the tags.

The article is not POV, rather it seems certain parts of some sections are causing issue, and I am removing it.

The heading is appropriate, it is a quote and the section deals with that quote and what caused it.

Rewriting may be required, but extensive it certainly is not.

"The most notorious ..." is indeed a little dubious. Placing a {{cn}} tag asking for someone to prove it, or deleting/rewording is the way forwards.

Please try and examine your intent here. Everything you say leads me to imagine you are "of one side" rather than neutral; I may be wrong, but over-reacting (IMHO) and placing a POV banner is sort of a common knee-jerk reaction when someone is slighted by facts or opinions they cannot swallow.

Feel free to add material that finds consensus with the other editors to balance any POV you find exists. Please also sign your comments.

You made some edits, another editor reverted you, and now we discuss. The issue here is that there are other avenues open, such as the cn tag mentioned previously, as well as such things as discussing concerns before such tags. We encourage editors to be bold, but we also rely on consensus. At present there is no consensus to place the tag there, indeed it seems the tag is offending at least two of us as we regard the article to be, on the whole, fairly balanced. Tagging sections could cause less offence, but without pursuing those other avenues, it will often cause a reaction, a revert, and a WP:BRD cycle. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary comma in public sector top section line 15

I don't think that comma should be between public and sector in the top section and I want to know why my edit was reverted. I think what is being referred to here is the government owned enterprises which is not officially spelt with a comma unless there is a weird convention of UK English. This revert is not even keeping the article consistent because "public sector" is mentioned twice and the further mentions are not included with an unnecessary comma! Qwerty123M (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

There isn't usually a comma between public and sector, but in this context it's a follow-on from private [sector] so it makes sense. I didn't do the revert, but maybe it could be rephrased as "characterised by widespread strikes in both private and public sectors"? MarpoHarks (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)