Talk:1984–1985 United Kingdom miners' strike

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been selected for the Organized Labour Portal Article Of The Day for March 5.

Mining Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Socialism Mid‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history Mid‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 - Creation - June 2008

Courts

There should be more details on the employers use of the courts to seize union funds. It was an important part of the battle. Can anyone help? Johncmullen1960 (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC) I might have something on that Chaikney (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-arrangement

It seems to me that the "History" section is long and muddled. Arguably the whole article is "history", innit. I'm thinking of splitting it into "Timeline" (or "Sequence of major events") and "Issues" (like the "Question of a ballot".

But if people have better ideas, I would like to hear them Chaikney (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did the re-arranging, there's probably still rough bits. Also did some big offline rewriting. Be bold and all that... Chaikney (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Useful resources

From the BBC South Yorkshire website here Chaikney (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Football hooliganism

I removed the follwing section as I cannot find any sources to support this:

Football hooliganism, another big social issue of the mid-1980s in England, became a venue for proxy conflicts between supports of clubs located in areas that were on different sides of the strike. As most Nottinghamshire miners did not strike, supporters of the county's football teams often became the bitter enemies of supporters of Yorkshire and Derbyshire teams; the local derby between Chesterfield (Derbyshire) and Mansfield Town (Nottinghamshire) often saw running battles between the supporters, with Mansfield nicknamed 'scabs' by many Chesterfield fans, which continues to the present day. There was also rivalry in the divide between Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire, as Sheffield Wednesday and Nottingham Forest were the biggest and best supported clubs in that area.

Feel free to add it back in once reliable sources are found --DFS454 (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go for Class A

I have been shocked to learn that Encyclopedia Britannica has literally nothing on this topic. Wikipedia is definitely ahead of the game here. However, I can understand why this is still only Class B. We need to cut out all unverified comments. There have been a few programmes on about the strike recently, so I expect that some others on here have some new information to add. I think that there needs to be more on the years just before the strike: for example, about how Scargill had called national ballots for strikes in the five years beforehand, but they had always returned "No" votes. Epa101 (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ITV

Does anyone know more about ITV reversing the timeline of events at Orgreave on their news bulletin? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation

There were some inconsistencies in the punctuation of this article; I went through and changed some of the punctuation. Hope it's OK? Sw258 (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

The introduction to this article says nothing about why the strikes took place. I think it needs to be a little clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.167.125 (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC) "[reply]

I expanded the introduction a good deal to account for actual circumstances following and during the strike. Added "Introduction" header to signal that this portion is actually a synapses of the article, now. --Protrucks (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC-5)

And therefore this remark: "This article's introduction section may not adequately summarize its contents."??? You want the same article in the introduction - just a little bit shorter? I can't believe it! --Wiskeps (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Police brutality in the United Kingdom

"Violence flared after police on horse-back charged the miners with truncheons drawn and inflicted serious injuries upon several individuals. In 1991, the South Yorkshire Police were forced to pay out £425,000 to thirty-nine miners who were arrested in the events at the incident.[10] Other less well known, but equally bloody police attacks took place, for example, in Maltby, South Yorkshire.[11] These confrontations contained organised police lines including charges by police and police mounted on horseback. In some cases miners organised themselves against this."

This passage makes clear that there was brutality by the police in this strike and therefore I will reinstate the Category:Police brutality in the United Kingdom.BorisAndDoris (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

Link 50, to Jeremy Deller's re-enactment is dead because the website has since been redesigned. I won't change due to a COI (work for Artangel) but if anyone wants to correct it the updated link is http://www.artangel.org.uk/projects/2001/the_battle_of_orgreave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.208.83.130 (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I have replaced the link. Keith D (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

I find this whole article somewhat biased towards the left. Plenty on the subject of police brutality but not a word on the activites of the flying pickets and their violence towards miners who wished to go to work. Remember it was an unballoted strike, nothing peculiar at all about the NUM rules as you suggest, he manipulated the rule book (rules 41 &nd 43 ) to suit his own ends. There are many recorded cases of working miner's houses having bricks thrown through their windows and worse, working miners beaten up, their wives and children terrified but no mention here. Amongst all of the other things that could be mentioned Arthur Scargill argued that no pit should ever be closed anywhere ever unless exhausted or had safety problems and only then with the agreement of the NUM. He further proposed that in the event of a disagreement between the NUM and the NCB over any pit closure that this should go to an independant body and the NCB should be bound by this! No small wonder the industry was in the state it was then. This man had no agenda at the time beyond bringing down the (tory) government and as such his activities were an affront to democracy. Ytongs (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And many others will find your views totally biased towards the hard-right. To be correct your last line should read: This vile woman had no agenda at the time beyond bringing down the Trade Union movement and as such her activities were a total affront to democracy. Ding Dong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.134.98 (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher was a blessing for the UK, she saved Britain from marxist communists and an already highly subsidised industry such as mining. The decline of the mining industry began way before Thatcher arrived in 1979, mining jobs declined from 1.2 million in the year 1920 to 300.000 in 1979. The miners fought an already lost cause which is more a tragedy than policy. 62.226.81.28 (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural effect

I have read that the miners' strike was a major influence on the generation of British comics who came of age in the 1980s. (Linda Smith comes to mind.) Can this be substantiated? 121a0012 (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map

The map of English counties with deep mines in 1984 and 2010 doesn't show Merseyside as having pits at all; the article mentions four in Merseyside, one in Knowsley and three in St Helens, which is correct. How can I contact Mtaylor848 who produced it? Also, I think he could quite easily have included Wales and Scotland (1984 pits in West and Mid-Glamorgan and Gwent, and in Strathclyde, Lothian and Fife; 2010 none). Brian Hepworth (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could drop a note on their talk page so they see it next time they login. Keith D (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could download a copy of the picture, edit it yourself and upload it again to replace the existing one. It's commons material after all. Let me know if you need a hand with that. Kaleeyed (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the map. Bazonka (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Free Market

The introduction contains a factual error. "The later strike ended with the miners' defeat and the Thatcher government able to consolidate its free market programme." The term 'free market' conflates the Chicago school and the Austrian school. Thatcher persued more of a Friedmanite programme as opposed to a free market model. An edit to Fiscal conservatism would make the article more accurate. Regards, Crotale (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add this to the article (with references of course). Kaleeyed (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Public opinion and the media

The first sentence seems totally at odds with the rest of the paragraph. It says "Public opinion during the strike was divided and varied greatly in different regions." but is followed by a series of polls showing significant public dissatisfaction with the miners. Perhaps a qualifier needs to be added saying that public opinion was initially divided but later turned against the miners 22/03/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.147.98 (talk) 09:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it to reflect the polling.--Britannicus (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Manufacture of Decent.

Sorry, but would it not be more honest to say that: "While public opinion at the start of the strike was generally supportive, following a concerted campaign of media of disinformation, opinion was skillfully turned against the miners"? 91.110.75.111 (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winter over

Shouldn't the article mention that Scragill made a mistake in calling the strike in March, when the worst of winter was over? Lord Kinnock mentioned this on TV yesterday. (92.7.16.128 (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I daresay that if we looked hard enough, we could find a source for the view that Scargill made a mistake in calling the strike. Thatcher saw him coming, and there was only ever going to be one winner. 109.144.214.32 (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but if the strike had begun in the autumn then its effect would have been much more devastating. As it was the government did still offer terms (which Scargill rejected). (92.7.29.27 (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I've always felt that this gets it the wrong around. McGregor made a good tactical move by announcing that the pits would close in March. They were to close within 5 weeks. Scargill could hardly wait until Autumn to call his strike, as the pits would have all been gone by then.

Another point: the strike actually began with unofficial action by hardliners on the ground, even before Scargill had started the official stuff in the office. Epa101 (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete - draft a section "Political consequences and aftermath"

I don't know enough to write this, but it's missing. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gorbachev was NOT Soviet Leader during the miners' strike

Gorbachev did not become general secretary of the party until 11/3/1985, about a week after the strike ended. He did not become chairman/president until 1988/1990.

So why is he referred to as the "Soviet leader" in this article?

Marchino61 (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on UK miners' strike (1984–85). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080820224224/http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/454/scargillism.html to http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/454/scargillism.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emotionalism - Fighting The Battles Of A Dead Decade With No Objectivity

This article concerns me - things are passed off as fact with uncheckable - or single, questionable links, and it all seems rather unencyclopedic. I speak as a life-long socialist by the way.

(86.154.183.77 (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

That was then, this is now. As a "life-long socialist", could you point to questionable information or facts? For what is it about the article that you object to? 91.110.75.111 (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an Emotionless 'socialist', would you would defend Jeremy Corbyn (against the on-going media attacks) or help to keep up the on-going Momentum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.134.98 (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly would you like to be removed? I think that this article is much better than it was two years ago. One problem is that the majority of books on this strike were written by socialists, as naturally they focus on the last time that >100,000 workers came out on strike for months on end. However, the references to Adeney & Lloyd or the Sunday Times surely cannot be considered socialist propaganda. 62.60.23.206 (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Few (or No) major unions supported the NUM

Recent edit was a change from No... to Few... with the editor saying that the NUR supported the strike. Was this the case, and was the support active or just passing a sympathetic motion? I was not aware at least of any active support. Gravuritas (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the relevant union in the railway industry that supported the strike was ASLEF. See this on their website. This is also mentioned on pages 82 and 234 of Davis Amos's thesis on the strike in Nottinghamshire. Epa101 (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus for move. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– This move request derives from a malformed one at Talk:UK miners' strike#Requested move 21 March 2017. Please refer there for the rationale. --Nevé –selbert 13:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nothing I've read yet convinces me this is a good idea. Could we start by stating the argument here: pointing us to some other thread which went nowhere is lazy. What *exactly* are the reasons for this proposed move? In advance of knowing those, I'll opine that whilst 84-85 is recent, 74 probably had a larger impact on the country; and there have been many others through the years. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most remember the 74 strike in connection with the "Three-Day Week" the same year, note that UK miners' strike (1974) redirects there.--Nevé –selbert 16:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There seems to be a couple of things wrong with this title, including the use of an abbreviation (UK intead of United Kingdom) and the oddly parsed date (WP:MOS requires "1985" not "85"). I agree with Tagishsimon that retaining the date is important. I would make the title "United Kingdom miners' strike of 1984-1985" or "United Kingdom miners' strike (1984-1985)". - Tim1965 (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: why not just redirect UK miners' strike to this page, with a hatnote saying "This article is about the 1984-45 strikes, for other UK miner's strikes see..." Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Amakuru's comments here: if an article is considered primary, a disambiguator shouldn't be needed. Hence why I aborted the previous request.--Nevé –selbert 16:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Who says this is the primary topic? Each miners' strike was in its own way significant and it is very important that the date is retained in some form or other as stated above. J3Mrs (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@J3Mrs:, surely you must acknowledge that the strike that began in 1984 was the most bitter and fraught industrial dispute that most Britons remember? It turned millions of livelihoods upside down unlike any other dispute. The bitterness of that conflict still lingers for many, and it was inarguably the most defining cataclysm of Mrs Thatcher's rule. In the New Statesman, the conflict "changed Britain for ever", so one can certainly make a fair case that said strike meets the long-term significance required for primary topic status, by a long way indeed. Ask most Brits about a "miners' strike" and who can you honestly name who wouldn't immediately think of this one? In a historical context, this was the momentous strike in Britain for generations.--Nevé –selbert 14:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on UK miners' strike (1984–85). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shu.ac.uk/cresr/downloads/publications/2-New%20coalfield%20article_final%20draft%20Feb%202005.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719065750/http://www.northern-soft.de/miners/ to http://www.northern-soft.de/miners/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150619162225/http://nmrs.org.uk/mines/coal/index.html to http://www.nmrs.org.uk/mines/coal/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on UK miners' strike (1984–85). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV in Cultural References

I like how the Cultural References section has 25 separate references, and literally 100% of them are hagiographies of the NUM and British socialist labor in general, as if nobody else ever had anything contrary to say.

Is there any sense in having this section if it's to be a "hall of fame" of NUM's finest press clippings? I'm literally just a random passer-by who's irritated by the flagrant POV of this article. It has all the hallmarks of a sacred cow article for the WP:LABOR cabal, and I'm pretty sure there's an ArbCom ruling suggesting we not do that. J. Harrington Inchworm III (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, another American that is given away by their mis-spelling the of word "LABOR". As such, why is someone from the US interested in attacking the British trade union movement? Is it that you are part of a cabal of American right wingers that - without knowing why - hate and fear socialism? 91.110.75.111 (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@J. Harrington Inchworm III If you know of cultural content that presents a different point of view to the ones already listed, then please add them!

Bear in mind: the issue you raise does not necessarily indicate bias. NPOV is about presenting an impartial picture of the situation. If most cultural content paints a favourable picture of the strikers, then you would expect most of the Cultural References to the same. 109.147.47.68 (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your neutrally-worded reply. In my defense, please consider the anonymous IP fellow above you for what I consider a more-accurate assessment of the average POV on this article. It comes off as simultaneously angry, bitter and triumphalist, like they're telling a favorite war story over beers at the union hall. While I do not care what they paint on signs or shout in the street, it is grossly out of tone for an encyclopedia. It is tolerated only because this article has so little traffic. Indeed, I made my first comment here almost two full years ago, completely missed the troll's comment, and only saw yours by chance. J. Harrington Inchworm III (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]