Talk:Yes Minister/Archive 1

message: Is it really NPOV to refer to civil servants having 'substantial' salaries?  Compared to private sector executives, or even the journalists who spend their time attacking civil servants, I suspect that even the most senior officials are modestly paid.  sjoh0050
:I think that to say civil servants make a "substantial" wage is an entirely neutral statement.
:The show takes pains to describe in some detail Humphrey as being better paid than the rest of the main characters.  He's firmly established as making more than the Prime Minister (much less the Minister) in "A Real Partnership"—until the episode's resolution gives them parity.  A figure of £75,000 is actually given for his salary in "The Bishop's Gambit".    To say that it's a matter of perspective that their pay isn't "substantial" is to fall  into the trap Sir Frank and Sir Humphrey are setting in the "Partnership".   By comparing civil servant pay to highly placed executives in the private sector, your basis is "atypical and above average".  Objectively, compared to the average wage in the early 1980s, Humphrey's salary is a "substantial" sum.  
:And it's not just that Humphrey is well off.  The pay scheme revealed in "Partnership" makes it clear that, although the PM and the Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet were now to be graded at the same level, the same would not apply to lower officials.  Ministers were only to be graded at the level of an Undersecretary, meaning that if Hacker and Humphrey were in their Yes Minister roles, Humphrey would still be at least a grade ahead of Hacker.  Even Bernard would've been makng more than just about every MP, except for Ministers, and, by any valid statistical measure, "substantially" ahead of the average British wage.  CzechOut 08:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, Humphrey said "Why don't you grade yourself as a Permanent Secretary?", Humphrey himself of course being the Cabinet Secretary at the time. Don't Cabinet Secretaries earn more than 'regular' Permanent Secretaries? René van Buuren 00:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Salaries

message: Was there a third series Yes,Lord Chancellor?...I had read once that there was but there's no mention here.--Louis E./le@put.com/ 12.144.5.2 15:20, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there wasn't. One of the stars or writers may have joked about it at some point, but no such series existed. Bonalaw 14:28, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: It does seem, though, that "Yes, Lord Chancellor" is the title of a biography of Claud Schuster, 1st Baron Schuster. Proteus (Talk) 15:05, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes,Lord Chancellor

message: I am amazed there is no mention of this phrase in the article. I would have added it myself, but I'm not certain what the orginal form was: ("You may think that" / "you may say that" / "you might think that" / "You might say that" / etc, all appear to have equal prominence on the web, and the only site that looked reasonably definitve about it doesn't appear to work in Firefox (I dont' have any other browser to try it in). Thryduulf 22:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase came from House of Cards.  We even have an article on it at YMSTICPC. --Mrwojo 01:49, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: You may think that, but I couldn't possibly comment

message: I was wondering whether there should be a mention of the publication of the diaries of James Hacker (a clever way of publishing the script of the Yes Prime Minister series). The ISBN for anyone trying to find out more about it is 0 563 20773 6 --Matthew Dingley 21:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. If I'm honest, I actually remember the books more than the series itself. --Bonalaw 08:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The diaries of James Hacker 

message: This article should include information on the various incarnations of Yes (Prime) Minister. The diaries are mentioned above but there's also the duplication across television and radio. Do the first broadcast dates refer to the TV or radio formats? And what formats are still available?
:See e.g. the BBC Shop  (search for "Yes Minister").  --Valentinian 21:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it also worth saying that as the series is often repeated on BBC Radio 7, the radio episodes are often available to be listened to using the BBC's Listen Again service? --Matthew Dingley 15:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  BBC FOUR often repeats episodes of Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister. DTR 19:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Formats 

message: (When a YM/YPM Wikiquote page is created, this info can be transfered from here)
Party Games (YM Christmas Special) December 17, 1984.  Final Scene - Humphrey's office.  Waiting for the results of the party caucus vote to find out who was elected to be the new Prime Minister.  The phone rings, Humphrey takes the call.
Sir Humphrey: "I will let him know." (hangs-up)
Jim Hacker: "Is it..is it..me?"
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, Prime Minister".
69.39.172.107 18:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable Quotes

message: According to the criticism section "Thatcher wrote a four-minute sketch which she performed with the show's two principal actors", whereas the Bernard Ingham article claims that "It was Ingham, not, as popularly supposed, Thatcher, who was responsible for writing the Yes, Minister sketch which she performed in public with Paul Eddington and Nigel Hawthorne."
Anyone know which is correct?
Kfor 09:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "It emerged afterwards that Mrs Thatcher had worked on the script on Thursday with Bernard Ingham, her Press secretary. "I sharpened it up," she said."  kabl00ey 07:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Different reliable sources say different things, tho'. The JPStalk to me  —Preceding comment was added at 08:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should just note in the article that evidence is mixed as to who wrote the original manuscript, and that it may have been edited by a second party. kabl00ey 19:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 minute sketch written by Thatcher, or Ingham? 

message: Is not the correct title for the first series "Yes Minister" (without the comma)? I believe it was only "Yes, Prime Minister" that ever had the comma. Unless there are objections I will be moving the page.
:Yes, Minister is the show's official (and grammatically correct) title as designated by the IMDb. It's true that there is no comma shown on screen, but it is implied in the title sequence with the separation of the two words by the graphic of Big Ben. Chris 42 11:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Chris, but the title is officially 'Yes Minister', IMDB are wrong to list the show in this way. For proof you only need look at a DVD cover or even better the BBCs own Comedy guide to find that it is always spelt without the comma. I would agree with moving the page and redirecting 'Yes, Minister' to it. ~~ Peteb16 11:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's okay. I always ignore any DVD titles anyway (just look at the debate re. Superman vs. Superman: The Movie) and it's true that the on screen title is ambiguous, as I outlined above. The IMDb also lists House, M.D. where no comma appears in that title sequence as well. I've no objection to it being moved. Chris 42 11:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was Moved from Yes, Minister to Yes Minister. —Centrx→talk • 04:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Comma 

message: Just as a note, I successfully updated the IMDb page to reflect the correct title. It now reads "Yes Minister". Chris 42 20:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated IMDB with correct title

message: Hi folks, You may have noticed I've tidied some of the references today. Thanks to User:Chris 42 for expanding my 'opening titles' start.  I need your thoughts on the following:
*do we really need all three DVD covers, given that they're practically identical? I propose losing series 2 & 3 covers. If that leaves a void, then perhaps it can be replaced with a limited number of appropriate screenshots?
**As an afterthought, we should lose the season 1 cover from the infobox too, and replace it with the title card. Then we can use a still of the  caricatures in the 'Openning title' section, which is more illustrative of what that section is discussing.
*there are a couple of unsourced statements in the 'Critical reaction' section.
*a section on the books of the scripts. Perhaps including DVD releases. There are a few BBC Radio Collection cassettes/CDs -- were these actually broadcast on BBC radio? Are they just the TV show, or where they rerecorded?
Any other suggestions about what needs doing to improve this?
The JPStalk to me 21:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be in favour of adding the caricatures and moving the title card, providing a smaller version of just the DVD Series One cover is moved to a DVD section. Chris 42 22:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just moved the title card image to the infobox, and positioned the DVD cover image for the first series to another position on the page - as well as moving the DVD cover image for the third series to another position on the page.  I have deleted the DVD cover image for the second series. I do not think that 2 DVD cover images are too many. I donated the images to Wikipedia before there was a title card image - this was the reason why the first series DVD cover was originally used for the infobox (which I also created). Figaro 22:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks. I stil don't think we need two DVD covers, though. One would be sufficient, which will go in the 'DVD releases' section, which should appear shortly. They all are effectively the same: three men is suits! I wonder if it's useful to have a screenshot from the Thatcher sketch, since it has some attention? The JPStalk to me 22:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I had been intending to keep only the first series DVD image, and put the image for the third series DVD image onto the actors' pages - but the DVD images were removed from the actors' pages as soon as I put them onto the pages.  I have made another attempt to put the third series DVD cover image onto Nigel Hawthorne's page as part of his 'television' section and, if the image is allowed to remain on Nigel Hawthorne's page, I will remove it from the "Yes Minister" page. If the image is not allowed to remain on Nigel Hawthorne's page, then I would like to also keep it on the "Yes Miniter" page because I think that the photo on the cover is to nice to lose. Figaro 23:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, well I removed them from the actors pages because it goes against our fair use policy. Technically, we shouldn't be using screenshots of their characters on the acctors' pages, but many people justify that so long as the show is discussed. The DVD cover, however, is pushing it... I'm afraid that being a "nice" photo isn't a sufficient rationale. BTW, remember tha all fair use images should have a fair use rationale on their image description pages. The JPStalk to me 23:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would still like to keep both the first series DVD image and the third series DVD image (and I did delete the second series DVD image). As I mentioned, I will remove the third series DVD image from the "Yes Minister" page if the image is allowed to remain on Nigel Hawthorne's page. Figaro 23:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your rationale? Remember that we have a policy concerning the use of fair use images: Wikipedia:Fair use. The JPStalk to me 23:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't see a reason for having two DVD covers. Until the "DVD releases" section is created, they are at the moment not illustrating any text. When the section does appear, I don't think that enough could be written to cover the height of both  pictures, which would leave an awkward amount of white space. However, I could be swayed on this if they are reduced in size, and the second image is of the Yes, Prime Minister Series 1 DVD — that would then be representative of both series. Chris 42 11:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Have now added the Scarfe pic, DVD section and two DVD covers as per above. I would have preferred it if I could get the two cover pics to float right horizontally, but I was unable to achieve this. If anyone knows the correct markup, then feel free. I've left the YM: Series 3 pic on Nigel Hawthorne's page as requested. Hope it's all okay. Chris 42 19:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for supplying the Scarfe pic.  It's great.  Thank you also for leaving the DVD cover image on Nigel Hawthorne's page - I appreciate it very much. Figaro 22:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've now floated the YM DVD to the left. I think it looks better, the only downside is I can't get the bullets to display! Chris 42 20:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Vast improvement! Good work, JPS. Chris 42 21:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Figaro, I was quite happy with the gallery, as stated above. Chris 42 21:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have been happy with the DVD gallery too, but JPS has continually and persistently demanded that only one DVD image should be used to illustrate the series – life is too short for it to be taken over by the sort of pointless arguments, fuss and bother which has accompanied the second series DVD cover image having been used, so I decided to acquiesce to his demands about it – to try to avoid further conflict. "Yes Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" are among my favourite television viewing (hence my having these on DVD), and I want my thoughts of the series to be enjoyable – not something which is clouded through pointless and trivial arguments. Figaro 22:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It was JPS who added the gallery... Chris 42 11:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Demands" and "arguments" is rather hyperbolic. I thought we were having a discussion. I did ask you to bear in mind our fair use policy, however. We should be able to get away with two images in the DVD section on this article (especially since it is acknowledging two separate series, and the section is about the DVDs), but the covers shouldn't be in the actors pages. Similar discussions have taken place in the past about magazine covers. The JPStalk to me 11:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have removed this comment, as it seems to be unreferenced and uses weasel words:
Thatcher read the show as an indictment of the civil service, while others see it as an indictment of the British parliamentary system. Many agree that it is a combination of both.
Bob talk 18:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article tidy

message: All of the first series' episodes are now done. I'll be taking a short break and then hope to continue with the others. Chris 42 19:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode articles 

message: What do we think about the most recent comments in the peer review? Does anyone have any more info we can use to expand it. The sources have the exact dates of the series, but I was cautious of making it a copyvio (there's only so many ways "sixteen episodes of two series...." can be phrased. The JPStalk to me 06:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More peer review comments 

message: I have reviewed this article in accordance with the Good Article criteria, and have found the article to meet all criteria, and although there are still some minor points that could be improved, I found these were not distracting enough to fail the nomination.
#Well written: no real problems here, but be careful with jargon. What is Thatcherism for example? Also the references of minor characters to real people is a bit problematic, since many people (me included) don't know who Derek Rayner or Andrew Alexander are, and for the latter why there was a reference. 
#factually accurate and verifiable: maybe there could have been some more inline references (especially in the remakes and legacy section), but in general I found it to be sufficient.
#broad coverage: again sufficient in general, although I missed a bit about broadcasts outside the UK.
#NPOV: no problems here. Were there any opponents of the series?
#stable: some recent reverts, but no big issues
#images: all images were appropriately tagged.
One other point:
* In the section Background, the series is described as not taking sides between Labour and Tories, except for one episode. But which side did they take in that episode? I take it to be Labour, but I'm not sure about that. 
Congratulations to the writer(s)! Errabee 15:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: Is there a reference for Yes, Minister's influencing House of Cards?  I remember it explored the same themes, but not at all in the same light, nor with the same conclusions.  --RobertG ♬ talk 16:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence 

message: These were both added on the 3rd of May, but I'm not sure whether the first one was really in the correct place (background section), as it's really more of a plot issue:
In Yes, Minister, the Prime Minister, Hacker's superior, is never seen and is simply referred to as the Prime Minister. He later resigned and was succeeded by Hacker himself. In the Yes, Prime Minister series he is simply referred to as Hacker's predecessor who causes embarrassment by publishing his memoirs.  
    
and the second addition was also seemingly in the wrong place, as well as being slightly point of view: 
One of the appeals of the series was that it was a sitcom based in the country's corridors of power and not simply a suburban home. It was also based on extensive research into the workings of government. 
Bob talk 19:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed additions 

message: :Image:Scarfejh.jpg
May I point out that Eddington's caricature resambles Margaret Thatcher. I believe that this is an (political satirical) in-joke. Why hasn't this been mentioned in the Opening Titles section? --81.157.139.168 15:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide a reliable source? Otherwise it would be original research, and thus inappropriate. The JPStalk to me 16:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah, typical Wikipedia, 'Source or didn't happen'. The image used in the article (which I've added here) is, as you know, from the Yes Minister titles. However, in Yes Prime Minister, the cariacture of Eddington looks noticeably different, reflecting on the stress that Jim Hacker receives in the series. In my opinion, both of the Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister caricatures of Eddington definately differ from one another, thus proving that the YM caricature is probably based on a different (political) figure, Margaret Thatcher for example. I don't have a link showing the YPM caricature of Eddington but I've found one of Thatcher that does the trick. Note the large teeth, long nose and other features, very similar to the YM caricature of Eddington, but not similar to the YPM caricature (although ironicly, was the series in which Hacker becomes PM) which shows a more serious imitation of Eddington. This is the only 'proof' I can attain at the very least that shows that the YM caricature of Eddington is based on Margaret Thatcher as a political in-joke.
http://www.vizcarra.info/fotos/historicos/politicos/MargaretThatcherCaricature2.jpg
--86.154.0.233 21:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." I'm not saying I disagree with your observations. But, yes, source or it doesn't happen. Oh, and non-free images are not allowed outside of main article space. The JPStalk to me 21:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I suppose with 1,800,000 articles, Wikipedia has a right to demand a source that shows definate verification. I can't really find anything that mentions the caricature similarities, so I'm stumped for now. --81.157.143.35 07:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening Titles for Yes, Minister

message: Please see the discussions at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive BD#Using Wikipedia:Television episodes and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mass deletion of television articles by TTN if you haven't done so already. I have participated and regrettably traded one or two barbed comments in the heat of the moment. I created the YM/YPM episode articles and put a lot of work into them. However, TTN's behaviour notwithstanding (a separate issue), there is a body of opinion that such articles should not exist at all unless they contain more than plot, cast and trivia and are fully sourced. TTN believes they are undeserving of a place on Wikipedia in their current form and should be deleted immediately. What do others think? YM is an important series — on that I'm sure we agree. As regards providing episode articles, do we:
*Accept that there is no need for them?
*Examine what could be added to what is already there in an attempt to keep them?
*Amend List of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister episodes to give brief plot summaries instead?
Of course, from my perspective, having spent a great deal of time creating them, I would be loathe to see them go but I am willing to look at the wider picture here. (See Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#DISCUSSING THE GUIDELINE, where hopefully a more civilised discussion is taking place.) Chris 42 22:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is annoying, particularly as it only seems to be one individual who is responsible. I can quite understand why you're annoyed - I personally think it's very useful to have episode articles. If this policy is to change, and I hope it doesn't, I suppose if you didn't want to see all your work go to waste you could make sure you copy your text beforehand and put it on another website that we could link to, a bit like the Star Wars wiki. Obviously, that's just a lot of hassle though. Perhaps some sort of collaborative wiki could be produced for episode articles for the many hundreds of episode articles that may potentially go. Bob talk 09:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was one of the people who reverted TTN's redirects, as I considered them hasty and contrary to the part of the guideline which states that pages with good possible sources shouldn't be reverted, but expanded.  IE. given time to improve.  Many have the potential to be brought up to standard, or perhaps merged into a few season pages.  Anyway, check out Wikipedia talk:Television episodes where we're discussing how to expand the guidelines to be more helpful to those building pages (and outline when pages should be created), and ensuring tehy are consistent with wikipedia-wide policy.  Also, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episodes, a discussion is taking place about establishing a procedure for dealing with problem articles.  This'll give you an idea of what is likely to happen in the future, what options are out there.  Also, you might be able to contribute thoughts.  This is a collaborative effort, not a few ruling the many. Hope this helps.  Gwinva 07:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible episode article removal 

message: Should the article mention the influence on the series (and particularly on the episode "A Question of Loyalty") of the book "Your Disobedient Servant" by Leslie Chapman, published in the late 1970s?  I believe Chapman was the model for "Malcolm Rhodes".  This gives a brief description of the content of the book, and its impact.  I read the book (which was dynamite) but I can't find a reference that directly states its influence on Yes Minister: I'm sure I remember its being mentioned in a documentary about the "making of" I saw once - or was it on the "Britain's Favourite Sitcom" thing?  Anyone else know a reference for this?  I can't claim spotting this influence is original research, so it must be documented somewhere: I just can't find where…  --RobertG ♬ talk 17:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your Disobedient Servant 

message: Why no add this (This page contains sections of uncited material removed from the main article), from a sandbox, but looks interesting) Hugo999 06:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You answer your own question: it's uncited. The JPStalk to me 20:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Background

message: Having watched the series, it seems to me that there should be a mention in the article of how accurate the 'predictions' in the series were. One example is the Trident Renewal that is the focus of one episode, with exactly the same debate being held outside of it. Many times I have thought that several real-life events sounded like they were straight out the series. Jarry1250 (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevancy

message: It says in the article, "almost every episode ends with the words ... blah blah blah" - I was just wondering which episodes DON'T end with those words.  I can't think of any episode ending on anything other than 'Yes, (Prime) Minister', or a very very close incarnation of it (e.g. I know there's one concerning the French President ('A Diplomatic Incident' I think) that ends with Sir Humphrey saying 'Oui, Prime Minister', and I think one ends with Humphrey almost saying 'Yes, Doctor' but correcting himself at the last minute, but these are hardly different at all).
This is more for curiosity than anything else, but I also don't think that what's said in the article about this is sufficiently comprehensive - it is a major feature of the series. To me anyway!
82.69.77.254 (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure there's at least one 'No, Minister' somewhere in there. --144.53.226.17 (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just watched it, and there's "Mais oui, Prime Minister" in A Diplomatic Incident and "Yes Doctor, er, Minister" (dropping a deliberate hint) in Doing the Honours. I didn't see any other variations, although "No, Minister" appears at points other than the very last line, of course... Possak (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Programme Endings 'Yes, (Prime) Minister'

message: The last part of the following sentence doesn't make sense:
:Meanwhile, his sociology student daughter, Lucy (Gerry Cowper), becomes an environmental activist in one episode (her only on-screen appearance, despite several other mentions), campaigning against one of her father's departmental policies to remove a protected badger reserve in the Home Counties from losing its protected status.
I suspect it is supposed to say that the daughter was opposing removing the protected status, but I don't remember that episode and I am not sure enough to edit it. Also there is nothing about the fact that both "Yes Minister", and "Yes Prime Minister" were shown by PBS the United States. I realize that being shown on PBS is not as important as being shown on a major network, the show was not going to have the same kind of impact in a country without a parliamentary system,  but I would have thought the fact that it was licensed to PBS for televising in the US would have rated a mention. I google search on "Yes Mininster" PBS turned up a bunch of hits so I suspect sources can be found.  Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember that episode, Sir Humphrey saves the day by telling Lucy there are no badgers there anymore, and that the allegations of badgers is because some developer is hoping to defeat this project, but then move in later.  It is clearly false, as Hacker discovers when he asks to see the report, but it fools Lucy.  I am planning to copyedit the article a bit adn will work in the PBS, which I am sure I can find an appropriate source to.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks you fixed the issues I was concerned about, and I didn't even know it had run on A&E. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of issues with the article 

message: this edit introduced:
"Through the first and second series of Yes Minister there were slight hints towards the centre-right newspapers having an impact on government opinion and popularity namely The Guardian, The Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph suggesting a centre-right government particularly associated with the Conservative Party; considering that throughout the period of Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister the incumbent government of the United Kingdom was Conservative under Margaret Thatcher, later Baroness Thatcher whom Sir Antony Jay had a personal affection and interest in politics of the Conservatives."
:Unless the centre has moved, The Guardian is not centre-right.  The second half of the sentence (yes, it is one sentence) struggles to make sense.  And is this backed up by a ref, or is it OR?  Mr Stephen (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is fair comment. Of course it is important to take NPOV, but it is in the context of describing a spectrum on newspapers. I see nothing wrong with that. in the context of the article, which isn naturally political. SimonTrew (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eh? 

message: In a featured article?  Seriously?  Wow. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When this article was promoted on 11 September 2007 it did not have this wording. So it was added after the fact. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-award winning 

message: Politics: "considering that throughout the period of Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister the incumbent government of the United Kingdom was Conservative under Margaret Thatcher, later Baroness Thatcher whom Sir Antony Jay had a personal affection and interest in politics of the Conservatives." 
:"later Baroness Thatcher, for whom Sir Antony Jay had a personal affection as well as an interest in the politics of the Conservatives."?
Bernard Woolley: "He can occasionally appear rather childlike, by making animal noises and gestures or by acting out how such an analogy cannot work and to which sometimes he annoys his Minister." 
:"with which"?
These may be unnoticed main page vandalism. Excellent article btw. Ben MacDui 08:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see (or saw) your dilemma-- and of course to see-saw is very appropriate here-- I would stick with it how it is cas long as it is fact. Mrs Thatcher was the Prime Minster at that time. I can see your dilemma but I think best to leave it. SimonTrew (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Syntax problems

message: Sometimes they are in eyeties and sometimes just plain. Personally I prefer plain, but at least I think they should be consistence throughout the article.
SimonTrew (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Newspaper titles should always be in italics, this is the style Wikipedia uses. If you see they are inconsistent, please change it so they are all italicized. Secondly, you can change the links. I'm assuming you mean change the article titles. You can do this by going to the article that you think the title is wrong and go to the top of the page and there is a "move" tab. Click that and it allows you to move the article to a new title. Make sure you have a good reason and evidence to do so and explain your reasoning in the box. Also, if "the" is included in the newspaper's title I think it's policy to always capitalize it as it's part of the proper noun title of the newspaper (see this edit I made). I know the Music Wikiproject specifically mentions this, I'm not sure if it's mentioned in the Manual of Style anywhere. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed that in WP:ALLCAPS The New York Times is written with the capitalized "the", so it seems this is the common practice. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Yeah thanks I know how to change the links it is just a question of style. All the links now work just they vary in style.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 17:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style consistency on newspaper titles 

message: The article is nicely done, but uses  repeatedly in a way that does not follow the documentation for the template, see Template:Cquote. Specifically I think  should be used. This is a nitpick, thanks for an interesting read. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 20:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  I should note, for Ruhrfisch and anyone else concerned about stylistic errors, real or perceived, that there is no one to make changes.  CzechOut was the lead editor on this article, he does not seem to be active (yes, he has Czeched Out, so it seems).  Please make any stylistic changes yourselves that need to be made, and discuss anything likely to be contentious here.  Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am here to make changes, together with another, we have scrubbed this up quite a lot I think. Not perfect but not too bad. Har har with the pun about czeched out. I think we are doing ok. At the moment the worst problem is vandalism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 03:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I converted the first cquote to just an inline quote as the MOS says to only use block quotes for text four lines or more long (or a whole paragraph). Switched the other two cquotes to block quotes. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 16:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations and MOS 

message: The article states that the writers said the drinking in Qumran episode (sneaking alcohol into a party) was based on this actually happening to someone in Pakistan.  How is this possible?  Alcohol was banned for Muslims in 1977, and up through today, foreigners who are not Muslims can purchase alcohol from anywhere (and unofficially even Muslims can and do purchase alcohol everywhere).  You don't need to hide it or sneak away to drink. There are breweries in Pakistan, including the famous Murree Brewery.  The episode looked like it was parodying a Gulf Arab state.  Apparently, the writers said that this happened in Pakistan so its fine in the article, I just wanted to point out that its not possible for it to have taken place in Pakistan. Inf fg (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Influences