Talk:UK miners' strike (1984–1985)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	Organized Labour Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been selected for the Organized Labour Portal Article Of The Day for March 5.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

Contents 1 Discussion 2 Preceeding history 3 Defining event 4 NPOV/Weasel notice 5 Accuracy? 6 Concentrates too much on Yorkshire? 7 Pits left at privatisation 8 Ballots 9 Five named pits? 10 Productivity 11 Divide and rule= 12 Thatchers terrorism against the miners 13 Sources, accuracy etc 14 Politics? 15 Photographs 16 Intro concerns 17 cut ricky tomlinson 18 causes of end of strike 19 Generations? 20 Pit closures map 21 Bad references 22 Fair use rationale for Image:MINOR STRIKE SEPT29.jpg

[edit] Discussion

Can we perhaps create a "battle of orgreave" section?Ukbn2 09:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

On that note I just noticed the part that reads "News footage of the 'Battle of Orgreave' showing the miners initiating disturbances by charging the police has since been proven to be doctored.[citation needed]". Surely if it was proved this can be cited otherwise it should be removed? - Robino

I think this article is HIGHLY BIASED and should therefore be marked with an NPOV tag. The fact is that a large fraction of the British public opinion viewed the defeat of the miners union as a positive event which allowed the country to be pulled out of the economic stagnation it was in because of the muddled policies of the previous 20 years. In a broader context, this event can be seen as a defining moment for the political movement towards neoclassical economic policies that was so characteristic of the 1980s in the US, the UK and other western countries. This movement is seen as positive by many; a fact that is not reflected at all in the article.

I think this article is getting there in reflecting the truth- it is important that people who were there at the time, right in the middle of it are allowed to report and document fact.I am unsure where the citations about the none support are coming from - they are simply untrue outside mining communities and should be removed.Ukbn2 08:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to point out an irrelevant statistical comparison made in the introduction of this article. A sentence notes something like "Ten deaths resulted from events around the strike, which is exceptional in the history of British industrial relations." But then proceeds to compare these ten deaths to the number of miners killed in accidents in a typical year. This comparison is meaningless and amounts to an attempt to compare "apples and oranges." PTM 6 Oct. 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.115.164 (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Message from User:Alberto_Orlandini for User:Rayray - August 31, 2004

I really don't know what you're on about here. It says quite clearly that the majority of the public - including the T.U.C. - were unsympathetic to the miners. It does also say that sympathy has increased since the event, but that is quite true. Remember the Daily Mirror's campaign of "Has your pit town been destroyed?" ~Epa101

I restored my additions on the page of the miners' strike. These are the reasons why I ask you not to delete them:

1) I think the effects of the strike on customers and coal-buyers are important and they need to be mentioned. It's a fact that the demand of coal after the strike was less then before the strike.

2) The main ground on which the police was mobilised was that picket lines represented violent intimidation against the miners who wanted to go to work, and this is a fact, you can find it on almost every newspaper of that period.

Again- were you living in a mining town at the time? Or are you just commenting 22 years later - every newspaper in the land did not report like this, and also remember that many miners read the morning star, another footnote that only people living in the communities would know.Ukbn2 08:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

3) Personally I don't agree with Thatcher's quotation that "the rule of law must prevail over the rule of mob". For example, sometimes the rule of mob is essential to end a dictatorship and to start a democracy.

But the fact that you disagree with a quotation is not a valid reason to delete it. After all it is just a quotation! A quotation is a fact. Of course it can be discussed, but I think it must not be hidden.

4) It is also true that the miners of that period were divided in two halves. One half was the one of the striking miners. The other half was the one of the miners who wanted to go to work. I think that also this fact must not be hidden. It is a fact that in many areas (especially Nottinghamshire and Midlands) strike ballots showed that more than 70% of the miners were intentioned to keep working and were not intentioned to strike.

Please cite references for a 70% voteUkbn2 08:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

To say that the strike was 50% is absurd - where were this missing 50% at orgreave? Where were they outside Maltby? If 50% of where i lived were not on strike, then they seemed to hide very well. There were 2 miners breaking the strike where i lived - i still remember there names. Again - you obviously did not live in a mining town during this period, and are perhaps reflecting your own opinion, not fact.Ukbn2 08:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that "fact" means something which happened or has been done, and therefore it is known and accepted as true.

Keep also in mind that I just studied quite deeply the UK government's policies in the 80s. That's why I wanted to add some contributions, and not because I'm a fervent supporter of Thatcher's policies as you might have thought.

So please, on the basis of these considerations, I ask you not to delete my additions.

I didn't mean to dismiss your changes - I retained several important points you made. I think that the Thatcher quote is interesting, but couldn't find a source for it. I think you should find out when and where she said it, and quote that as a reference.

Your statistics are also interesting, and worth including - just quote references, if you can.

Sorry if you misunderstood my motives - I just want the article to be fairly rigorous and scholarly, and fairly neutral. That's why I retained your point about Scargill's motives for failing to call a ballot. I haven't studied this particular event in detail, and am more than happy for people who have to make this a better entry! Rayray 11:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your message, and I'm sorry I misunderstood your motives. By the way, I'm far from being a fervent supporter of Thatcher government policies. I think the quotation should have been pronounced at Banbury in May 1984 after the Orgreave episodes of violence. I can control, if you are interested, but in the end I think it can also be left out of the article, there is no need to write it. Alberto Orlandini 16:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it's an interesting quotation, so if you can find the source and quote it more formally, it would be a good inclusion. I can't find a source on the web, but if you have it in some study notes somewhere...? I could also look it up in my local library. You'll be pleased to know that I didn't mistake you for a Thatcherite! Rayray 08:26, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Preceeding history

It's a good article but I think it would benefit from some of the preceding history to put it into context, particularly the way that the previous Tory administration under Heath had been humiliated by the 1974 strike. It is well documented that Thatcher was motivated by revenge as much as economic factors. I may put some work into the Ridley plan article, as that is also crucial to putting the strike into context. Perhaps we could approach the TUC about obtaining permission to use the infamous Orgreave picture (the one with the woman holding up an arm while a mounted riot officer has his baton poised to strike)? That was one of the defining images of the era, after all. --TylerD 10:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Defining event

This is a major defining event in British history.. it should be a lot longer. Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.153.219.170 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 27 February 2005

It is very difficult to find information about this event, though. The internet has very little in detail and most books concentrate on the long-term consequences of the strike, rather than details of what happened. One challenge is to find lists of the 20 pits that were to be closed. The B.B.C. does have one, but it seems to conflict with their map. See the link at the bottom. Notice how, on the map, three pits to the west of Leeds disappear in 1985, yet none of the pits listed for that year were west of Leeds. The "Savile" entry for that year probably means "Savile and Shawcross" [between Ossett and Dewsbury], but that's a piece of confusion, seeing as there was one just called "Savile" at Normanton. If anyone does know of a decent website or book giving details of the strike and which pits were shut when, please tell us! It would be a great service to British history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.22.47 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 27 May 2005

I've finally worked out the logic of the map. It's put Leeds in completely the wrong place. The square labelled as Leeds seems to really be Grimethorpe. I find this quite a hilarious piece of confusion. However, it was quite irritating, as it made me think that there were loads of pits north of Leeds that no-one had ever heard of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.30.47 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 9 July 2005

[edit] NPOV/Weasel notice

I've removed the tag as there is nothing on the talk page detailing complaints. I've also refactored the talk page, I hope you don't mind - I think it makes it easier to read. It can always be reverted if anyone disagrees. - FrancisTyers 00:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Highly biased article in my view (see above). Should definitely get an NPOV tag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.100.154 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 4 March 2006

Please feel free to introduce the tag and list specific complaints on the talk page. - FrancisTyers 22:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed tag - no specific things have been added that need correction and items mentioned above seem to have been dealt with? Seajay 11:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed weasel tag - no specific things have been added that need correction Seajay 13:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy?

"polls showed that more than 60% of miners intended to continue working."

Seamus Milne's book 'The Enemy Within' says that polls taken indicated a small majority of miners were in favour of strike action. I'll have to dig his book out to get his source for that but does anyone have a source to backup the 60% claim?.

"Scargill did not call a ballot for national strike action"

A union activist advises that the decision not to have a ballot was made by a Special Delegate Conference (each pit would have an open meeting and take a decision to mandate their rep on which way to vote, its the same type of Conferene that voted to call off the strike in March 85) and that Scargill didn't actually get invovled in the actual discussion. Its one of the enduring myths.

http://www.minersadvice.co.uk/reviews_class_war_and_damn_lies.htm

User:AkimovMagnus

I have removed the line "polls showed that more than 60% of miners intended to continue working". I'd too like to see a reference that a majority would have voted against the strike in a ballot. Even if such a thing was produced, however, the wording cannot read "intended to continue working", as that is simply not true: outside of Notts, Leics and South Derbys, practically everyone was on strike until the new year and that is a lot more than 40% of the miners. ~Epa101

[edit] Concentrates too much on Yorkshire?

There's very little mention of the effects of the strike outside Yorkshire. The After the strike section does not mention any other area. Why is this? It's not a very balanced article. Why is there a link to a page for Yorkshire pits that have been closed? Shouldn't there be one for all British pits? This strike did affect people in other mining communities. I think this article does not have a NPOV, one would tink that no area outside of Yorkshire was affected. Alun

Yorkshire is /was the spritual home of the mining indusrty - and the home of the NUM. Its like haggis and thinking of Scotland.Ukbn2 13:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What? I don't think there's any justification for Yorkshire being the "spiritual home". Other counties were just as focussed on coal mining, if not more so - take County Durham for example. Yorkshire had other industries that arguably eclipsed coal mining - County Durham had little else other than coal mining. Haggis is exclusively Scottish, and coal mining is not exclusively from Yorkshire by any stretch of the imagination.

Please feel free to contribute more information to the article :) - FrancisTyers 09:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason why there's only a link to collieries in Yorkshire is because I made that page myself and I am only knowledgeable of the pits in Yorkshire. If anyone else wants to do one for the other areas, feel free. If you want me to do one, then I'm afraid that you'll have to wait until I have more time.

Also, I think that some locals will recognise bits that link with areas other than Yorkshire. For example, the coal-steel link was quite prominant in Wales. However, I do see what you mean; the article could do with a bit more on other areas. ~Epa101

Now added a lot of stuff to do with Notts and a bit to do with Knowsley. I went to a bit of trouble to do this; I knew that Knowsley is constantly amongst the country's most deprived areas, but, being from a long way away, I had to check to see if it was an old mining area or not. Having two pits, I think that's enough to count.

[edit] Pits left at privatisation

The document linked to says that there were only 15 pits left by privatisation, but I'm sure there were more. The document details the fate of 11 pits, but doesn't mention Selby complex anywhere and that was 5 pits itself. It doesn't mention Kellingley and Maltby anywhere, yet they're still open today. Also, the B.B.C. page says that there were 27 pits left by privatisation; that sounds more accurate.

I think that there may be confusion on what is classed as 'left' and which were actually still in production. From the reference article there were only fifteen former British Coal mines left in production, although there may have been other mines, not actually closed but nevertheless only operating on a care and maintenance basis, and not actually producing coal. Seajay 11:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Seajay hits the nail on the head about maintenance. During the strike, due to no mining, sumps appeared at the coal faces and caused huge damage to the mines due to lack of pumping and mining - maintenance.Ukbn2 13:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ballots

Removed a claim that the NUM did not traditionally use the secret ballot. On the contrary, decisions to strike in 1972 and 1974 were made after secret ballots, long before these were mandatory

On a more general point, a look at the long term trend of employment in the mines certainly does not support the idea of 1984-5 being any sort of watershed. Mining had been a declining industry since the 1940s.

Exile 14:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If you reread the paragraph in question, you will notice that there is no such claim - although as you point out, ballots had been held before, there very definitely was also a tradition of voting at mass meetings. I think the original text should be restored. Guy Hatton 14:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't see how you can reject that 1984 was a watershed. It's true that pits closed before 1984, but you'd have to go back to the turn of the century to get 155 pits going out of production in 10 years. Also, decreased employment could be down to higher productivity per worker or to more pleasant jobs becoming available, rather than a decline in output.

Also the 1972 and 1974 strikes were over pay. The 1984 was over pit clousures. I believe that the rules that were employed in the 1984 strike applied specifically to strikes over closures, where they had a complicated system of public meetings that sent mandates to a national conference. There had been a threatened strike in 1982 when some mines in South Wales were due to close and everyone else, including Yorkshire, opposed it.

[edit] Five named pits?

One thing that I never understand is why literature around the strike always talks about the "five named pits" - Cortonwood, Bullcliffe Wood [both in Yorkshire], Snowdon [Kent], Polmaise [Scotland] and Herrington [Durham]. How does this fit in with the 20 pit closures that prompted the strike? I know that Cortonwood closed in 1985 and Bullcliffe Wood merged with Denby Grange in the same year; the other three closed later on. Anyone got any idea why these five always got mentioned as being special?

[edit] Productivity

For starters, page 4 of http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/special/uk_productivity.pdf and http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/13/newsid_2532000/2532765.stm click on the second video down and the commentator mentions how British productivity was higher. I shall try to find some more, as I remember one of my productivity sources estimating the gap at 400% with Germany, but must find it again. Back in 1984, the Germans were subsidising four times as much and the French three times as much as Britain - "The Miners' Strike", Geoffrey Goodman.

Also http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./media/1E4/71/bud06_productivity_513.pdf http://www.aimresearch.org/publications/rgbrief.pdf and more yet to come

N. Crafts & M. O'Mahony, "Perspective on U.K. Productivity Perfromance" in Fiscal Studies volume 22.3, 2001. Table on real output per worker sees Britain's tiny mining sector as more productive than France, America or Germany, with five times more than Germany.

I am getting sick of people trying to disprove this point. Britain does have a productivity gap. Any knowledge of economic litertature will tell you that. Look at above sources and you shall see it mentioned. Note that the sources say that mining productivity was higher in Britain than anywhere else. It was in 1984 and it still is now, even though there are only a few pits left. It seems to me that someone is trying to edit this part of the article for political ends. They see that it is a big point against Thatcher and Major that they destroyed one of the few industries where Britain actually held a productivity advantage, and they're trying to cover this point up.

//// there is a difference between an absolute advantage (which seems to have upset you) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage which is probably the relevant concept to think about —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.192.74 (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

At the time, there was an edit war going on and it drove me to writing the slightly melodramatic paragraph above. I just went back on this page now a year or two later, and found that what I wrote is still there but the references seem to have got lost for some reason. Epa101 (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Divide and rule=

The subsequent behaviour of the Tory government was seen by some to confirm fears about how they had been used to divide the miners' union

How exactly are we supposed to give a citation for this bit? I can link to B.B.C. interviews with ex-miners where they say things like that and old miners' pages saying that, but I expect that whoever put this in would see that as a biased source. The text says "seen by some" - not "seen generally".

++++++++There is a problem with the statement that the steelworkers union did not support the strike. This needs more qualification. While the ISTC might not have been legally allowed to come out on strike, ISTC infrastructure supported miners welfare massively with fundraising, and distribution of food etc. I have personal experience of this, and ISTC records held at Warwick University will back this up. Thanks+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It was illegal? How then did the railwaymen manage to go on strike out of sympathy? Even if the comment is modified, there does at least need to be a reference to the fact that many miners felt that the steelworkers let them down in 1984.

[edit] Thatchers terrorism against the miners

The subsequent behaviour of the Tory government was seen by some to confirm fears about how they had been used to divide the miners' union

20 years later We have documented proof, from the BBC, that this government used spies,soldiers,mi6,bugging,counter intelligence,slander,the newspapers and finally the benefits system to annihilate the strikers. Not polemic, but now documented facts. This perhaps puts Mrs Thatchers motives into perspective 20 years later. Can this finally be recorded as historical fact? Without the NPOV tag being introduced? It is important to highlight just how far governments will go to defeat and crush dissent. I am sure nobody will doubt that Iraq for instance, was a war for oil in 20 years time? Ukbn2 09:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you have access to said proof, please edit the page accordingly and cite it. Ou tis 01:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Just like labour is now doing to anyone who isnt a champagne socialist or one of their 'ethnic pets'.

Socialists harking on and on about the Thatcher years being corrupt should take a step back and look at the utter mess labour governments have caused.

The corruptness or otherwise of subsequent governments has no bearing on whether or not Thatcher's government was corrupt.

Thing is that Tony Blair is more right-wing than Norman Tebbit. Not even Tebbit was in favour of abolishing Legal Aid, as Blair's more or less done! Tebbit and Thatcher are actually prepared to disagree with American foreign policy on occasions too. 212.159.30.47 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources, accuracy etc

Answers.com is a mirror of Wikipedia. References have to be to reputable sources - not to Wikipedia mirrors, or the talk page of the article, or saying "I heard it in a WMC". Verifiability is the key to putting things into articles. I think we've got various people editing this article who have fairly close experience of the strike, and that's a good thing, but we ought to be trying to put together an objective article, not propaganda for one side or the other. There ought to be plenty of documentary evidence out there, and I'm afraid if people don't have documentary evidence for statements, they can't go in the article. For example, "lots of miners thought the police went in mob-handed" is no good, "Mick McGahey said 'The police went in mob-handed' (Guardian, date)" is fine. References to web pages are fine, provided the web pages are based on proper evidence. --ajn (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Ukbn2 - I get the impression you feel people are removing your additions on political grounds - I don't think most other people are, and I'm certainly not. The issue is purely verifiability and tone - we're not trying to write a 1984 Socialist Worker editorial here (or a 1984 Daily Telegraph editorial, either). --ajn (talk) 10:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries mate. I cant stand the swp anyway. They were all marching around pretending to be northerners in 84 outside uni's, when people in south yorkshire were eating boiled onions and bread. I get the verifiability, and thanks for your comments. As i explained to user guy hatton, im just trying to put some "grit" into the article. Wikipedia says "be bold" so im being bold 1 other thing "I think we've got various people editing this article who have fairly close experience of the strike, and that's a good thing, but we ought to be trying to put together an objective article," people who were not there who work for a news paper take credence over people who were there, but didnt work in the media? I can provide quotes to living people,NUM activists,strikers,miners for quotes, but this would not be allowed? I think the word "objective" is dangerous, i am not one to trumpet a cause, however,there is a lot of mis-information about the strike - for instance,my edits about donations and the EU cheese mountain were constantly removed and my suggestions about scargill being subject to goverment propaganda excercises- both are true, but were removed at one time or another under the rules of "verifiability" - they are now part of the article. In future i will cite NUM oficials names where i can - i cant be expected to quote tories that were around at the time - they didnt exist in Maltby :-)) 86.143.181.187 17:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No, this is precisely the sort of thing which will not do - please read the verifiability policy and the reliable sources guidelines. Reporting something which someone said to you is not good enough - that's original research, which is forbidden. Anything to go in this article needs to come from previously published sources, and to be cited - I'm going to be going through the article at some point in the next few weeks, and removing anything which isn't sourced. The idea that there are not going to be sources to give the miners' point of view is just rubbish - books were published at the time and afterwards, and there was lots of press coverage. That might need some digging out, but that's what's got to be done. Anecdote is just not acceptable - anything to go in an article must come from previously published primary or secondary sources. They are out there, because I remember reading them at the time of the strike. --ajn (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, you should be careful what you say; I may have left the SWP by 1984, but one thing I have never done before, during, or after my time as a member is *pretend* to be a Northerner. I *am* a Northerner, and so are/were many other party members :-) Guy Hatton 17:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Now of course, it's not factually inaccurate to describe the Morning Star as 'Communist' - it was at the time published by the CPGB, after all. However, you don't find people going on about the 'former Blackshirt-saluting crypto-Mosleyite Daily Mail' do you? :-) Guy Hatton 18:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad you saw the humour in my SWP bit guy lol And you are spot on about the "communist" reference to the morning star, imagine if we reffered to everything with a sub heading eg "the england football team,who once gave a hitler salute".

Andrew - i get the anecdote stuff, im going to try and find some printed material,flyers,newsletters etc from that era and try and quote from them. Thanks for all your help by the way with this article.Ukbn2 18:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed this error: Folk singer Billy Bragg wrote several songs dealing with the strike as a current event, namely "Which Side Are You On?" Billy Bragg did not write the song, he adapted it and could possibly be credited with re-popularizing this Florence Reece song from the 1930's. 65.209.165.170 17:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politics?

I was wondering if perhaps we could introduce a motives section as to why the government of the day,and the miners fought so bitterly, why for instance some pits were being developed with new head gear, exploiting new seams etc[Maltby] and were then closed/threatened with closure. Naturally i wont introduce this into the article as it would be spurious. was it just about jobs,cost effectiveness,or a class thing? A few times the article hints at peoples sorrow for the miners latterley - is this verifiable somewhere?Ukbn2 18:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Having lived through the miner's strikes I think that there was a great deal of political motivation from both sides in the dispute. If anything, I am disgusted at the government for allowing the situation to spiral out of control and eventually use the police force for politically motivated ends (even though I am sure that they were deployed legally). However, I wouldn't even know where to begin seaching for evidence of this even if it exists.

Candy 14:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photographs

Surely someone must have some photos? andreasegde 09:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro concerns

I'm looking at the intro and figuring out what to chang it to. I don'zt have any bones with the material it's just the way it is assembled.

"Coal was a nationalised industry and, as in most of Europe, was heavily subsidised. Supporters of the government claim that coal was a dying industry that could not be supported forever. Critics point out that mining productivity was higher in Britain than anywhere else in Europe or America and that the industry was only troubled because other governments subsidised their coal industries by so much more than Britain ever did."

Somehow, I feel the introduction should introduce the subject (perhaps with some context as Tyler D suggests). If you read the current introduction without any knowledge of the issues you will not end up any the wiser as to what the basic issues were. perhaps I will get time to edit this later when I have more time.

Also, I'm interested in the way that at the time it seemed that everyone perceived it as Thatcher vs The Miners and not the Tories vs the Miners. Perhaps the way it was polarised at the time should also be reflected in the article.

Candy 14:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Not many people remember Ian MacGregor now, but he was very important in the media for events. It was often portrayed as Scargill v MacGregor more than anything else. It seemed as if extreme left v extreme right. Epa101 19:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The whole article needs overhauling. It's an important subject, and it hasn't been well-served by people here trying to fight the disputes of twenty years ago all over again. It needs rather more time than I can give right now, but maybe in the autumn if nobody's done it by then... --ajn (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cut ricky tomlinson

I have removed this passage, given RT was not a miner, and the bugging started a decade or more before the strike:

" Another trade union activist and now famous actor, Ricky Tomlinson, was stunned to learn years later that he had been bugged, followed and shadowed by MI5, before being jailed for his political activism.[1]"

Watching the programme i was very surprised that he was "stunned", if i had his form as an agitator i'd be insulted if MI5 were'nt bugging me

[edit] causes of end of strike

Although the taxi driver who was killed certainly led to a fall in public support for the strike, it was absolutely not decisive. Public sympathy went up and down throughout the year . Johncmullen1960 19:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generations?

'"scab" was a word passed down generations' - seems an odd thing to say about an event that happened less than 25 years ago Pjc51 20:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pit closures map

"http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3514549.stm Map showing location of pits in 1984 and the closures each year since. Note that Leeds is on the wrong place on the map; the area pointed to seems to actually be Grimethorpe."

no more likely to be Grimethorpe than Leeds! If you compare on Multimap or Flashearth, Wakefield seems the closest, but Leeds is not actually that far from Wakefield anyway.

--Theoldgoat 13:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No, if presumed that Leeds is where the B.B.C. tells you, then you would thinks that Leeds was surrounding by loads and loads of coal mines, when they were actually all between Leeds and Sheffield. I worked out that it was Grimethorpe by how the dot goes out in 1992, when Grimethorpe pit closed. Epa101 (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad references

While cleaning up I found that one reference was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners%27_strike_%281984-1985%29#Books which of course is useless as it doesn't exist, so now has a fact tag. The second was to the section above http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:UK_miners%27_strike_%281984-1985%29#Productivity which I took to mean the external links listed there and for which I added a clarify tag. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MINOR STRIKE SEPT29.jpg

Image:MINOR STRIKE SEPT29.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)