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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Socialism Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

Untitled

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mitchell Heisman's "Suicide Note"

The uses of the phrase after September 2010 such as by Charles Krauthammer are incorrect.--KayWad (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaufman - really?

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)[reply]

Should damaging personal opinion be used in place of real fact?

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)[reply]

Questionable statement

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)[reply]