Talk:The longest suicide note in history
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The longest suicide note in history article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 4 March 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 11:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Untitled edit
This could be a good article about the 700-page policy document and the 39-page manifesto, but my suggested changes were reverted.
I am not going to bother to change it back, but the revert has:
- reinstated a broken link to the Keele copy of the manifesto
- removed a link to the interesting discussion in the Havighurst book
- removed a link to a relevant recent article in the Daily Telegraph
The 700 page/39 page confusion also needs to be corrected. -- Jttw (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps this is better under a new article anyway. I have copied the version that was reverted to New Hope for Britain, although a page move/rename would be better, in my opinion. -- Jttw (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Is this actually the original use of the phrase? I think John Osborne applied it to Jeffrey Bernard's Spectator column first, though I can't find an authoritative source for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnKozak (talk • contribs) 15:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Mitchell Heisman's "Suicide Note" edit
The uses of the phrase after September 2010 such as by Charles Krauthammer are incorrect.--KayWad (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Kaufman - really? edit
In pre-internet days the saying was attributed to Denis Healey. Something of this attribution survives in Laybourn, Keith: British Political Leaders: A Biographical Dictionary, p. 163. Harfarhs (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Should damaging personal opinion be used in place of real fact? edit
If Wilkpedia is to be consider a fact-based media outlet - and not a right-wing newspaper repeating damaging old smears - then should it not avoid highlighting personal opinion as if it was some kind historic fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.75.44 (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Questionable statement edit
The description of the 1983 United Kingdom general election defeat, as "Labour's worst result since the 1918 general election" is arguably misleading. Labour did record its lowest vote share since 1918, but in terms of number of seats won the 1983 result of 209 was far better than the party won in 1922 - 142, 1924 - 151, 1931 - 52, or 1935 -154. It was even better than the 191 seats Labour won in 1923 when it went on to form a minority government. Dunarc (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)