Talk:Gang of 25

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Thatcher in 1981

• ... that in 1981 it was feared that 25 Conservative members of parliament would vote against Margaret Thatcher's economic policies and cause a split in the party? "Now Thatcher's personal papers for 1981, released on Saturday, show how close the Conservative party came to splitting in the face of "brutal in-fighting" in Thatcher's inner circle, and the apparently unstoppable rise of the newly founded Social Democratic party ... the threat of revolt from a group labelled by Thatcher's inner circle as the "gang of 25" has not come to light before." from: Travis, Alan (30 December 2011). "Thatcher battled cabinet 'wets' over Howe austerity plans". The Guardian. Retrieved 18 May 2021.
  • ALT1:... that despite being a suspected member of the Gang of 25 that threatened to vote against the British government in 1981, Chris Patten was later appointed to Margaret Thatcher's cabinet? "it is believed that Jim Lester, Richard Needham, Chris Patten & John Wheeler made up the remainder of the 'Group of 25'." from: "Conservative Party: "Gang of 25" letter to Chief Whip". Margaret Thatcher Foundation. Retrieved 17 May 2021. and "Secretary of State for Environment, Department for the Environment, 24 July 1989 - 28 November 1990" from: "Parliamentary career for Lord Patten of Barnes". MPs and Lords - UK Parliament. Retrieved 18 May 2021.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Freddie de Guingand

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 09:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - See comments below

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Earwig returned a possible violation with the guardian source, but I think that's because the article uses lots of quotes from that source. The hook says, "it was feared" but it should specify who was fearful of the split. This should also be clarified in the article. Can you check the source and add this to the article and ALT0? ALT1 is approved, but I prefer ALT0. Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Z1720, how's this - Dumelow (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• ALT2: ... that in 1981 25 Conservative members of parliament considered voting against Margaret Thatcher's economic policies, which may have led to the party splitting?
• ALT3: ... that in 1981 the Conservative Party leadership feared that 25 of its members of parliament would vote against Margaret Thatcher's economic policies and cause a split in the party?

I approve ALT3 and ALT1, with a preference for ALT3. I don't like ALT2 because it feels too close to WP:CHRYSTAL (or rather, predicting an alternate reality). Z1720 (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Copyright violation tag

Hello! I'm not sure who added the copyright violation tag, but I evaluated the use/copyright claim and I feel like this would be copyrighted under UK law and therefore copyrighted in the United States (due to whatever reasons). However, I feel like if someone used a NFCC image and explained the significance of the letter and the signatures, it could satisfy the NFCC requirements instead. I hope this helped! I would suggest removing it/replacing it, but I think that the quote usage falls into proper quote usage territory for now until a further decision is made. Regards, Sennecaster (What now?) 14:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Dumelow and Neveselbert in case you haven't seen this yet. Sennecaster (What now?) 01:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't see how changing the media affects it acceptability for fair use? If anything a photograph of the letter would be worse, as we're introducing another copyright holder (though I know American courts have a much higher threshold of originality than British ones). The wording of the letter, particularly that the writers express that they've spoken to Jopling previously, and the exact nature of their threat is important to the reader's understanding of the article. I think it would be difficult to paraphrase or reduce the length of the quotation (from a source that is only two sentences long) while preserving meaning - Dumelow (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sennecaster, I added the tag. I wasn't sure whether quoting the entire text would be OK, so I tagged it with {{copyright violation}} (with a question mark). The text might be covered under the Open Government Licence, though I can't be sure. I think the idea of a NFCC image of the text in the PDF would be a good idea, honestly. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining; both of you. An image is easier to explain an NFUR for/argue for removal, and I think the authentic document itself would be historically significant so the signatures could be seen. I don't really know though, but in terms of copyright it is much easier to argue for an image of the text and signatures over a quote for fair use :). British TOO is extremely low and it's not going to be under OGL since OGL is pretty much post-2010 :P. Sennecaster (What now?) 14:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for your input. To be on the safe side I've removed the full quote and added a little detail on the wording of the letter to the main text. I've kept a list of signatories as this is the only place they are listed. If someone wants to upload a copy of the letter as a fair-use image, I have no issues with that - Dumelow (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

List of members?

I'm not seeing a list of the 25 members of the Gang in this article, and I think that would be a useful addition. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru, I previously included one as a table (see this revision) but it's addition was reverted by Neveselbert as being "too unwieldy and distracting". I think it is useful myself, in providing links to their articles which the current image does not. I would welcome further discussion on this point - Dumelow (talk)

Yes, I think we definitely need that table, or something similar which lists the members. It it were the Gang of 300, that might be a different matter (although even then, a subpage with the full list might be warranted) but with 25 it should be an easy matter to have them listed in Wikitext, not just in an image - and I'd wikilink them all from there, including even members mentioned elsewhere, for completeness. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(responding to ping) I think a {{col-list}} of members in a separate section would be a better idea to avoid being unwieldly or distracting in juxtaposition with prose. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 10:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Good idea with the col-list. I've added one to the article and welcome any changes/improvements. I still think it is important to separate the list by how they voted on 8 December as it helps to show who the "hardcore" opponents of Thatcher's economic policies were - Dumelow (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, and I think it looks good now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)