Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

How we avoid bias

Dear Lachadaisical, Just wanted to let you know how much credit you deserve for your top work on the Margaret Thatcher article, she was such a wonderful woman. I am 100% convinced that the article was much more better, much more improved from where it stood prior to my - I mean our - overhaul. Much better written. Unfortunately, some attempt to portray it as a complete trainwreck and POV damaged. And you don't get the gratification you deserve, you always seem to find the right word. Some want to make the article more 'neutral', more communist I think that means! They do not help our article.

Thanks for that jolly man, People with a shortage of facts but opinions to spare seem to believe the article is some kind of forum for their views. Our priority must be to ensure that the haters of this inspirational woman don't cut sourced fact from the article. Agree about the 'wonderful woman' - not only did she reverse the UKs decline, she smashed the NUM who threatened democracy, and ended the Cold War. I think if we stay vigilant we can keep the article neutral. Sayerslle (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you have to avoid making attacks on someone's character and bringing their political opinions into this. We should be able to read the edits of users without being able to understand their political opinion and biases. I can't say that is true for some of the editors editing this article at the moment. Whilst the article did lean far too heavily one way, we have to be careful not to tilt it too far the other. It should be neutral, which I know will be extremely hard given the topic, but we must try. Woody (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't bring their political opinions into this . They did that.Sayerslle (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Plus Thatchers two archrivals- Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock's pages are pretty similar to this in levels of criticism and focus on successes.Willski72 (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably all political biography pages have problems with bias - I guess you just have to keep your wits about you when you look at them. I didn't like the Kinnock article much either. I think the Thatcher page is spectacularly biased but I'm leaving it alone now.Sayerslle (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Miners Strike

It should really mention that going on strike without a national ballot was against the law. Also no mention of the fundamental problem here.... the whole reason there was a problem in the first place. That the coal mines were not price competitive (due to a number of factors that dont necessarily need to be mentioned such as no modernisation in the past 40 years, other countries could scrape coal off the surface rather than having to go down half a mile and the Unions repeatedly pressing for high pay rises etc). It mentions that they were losing money but it doesnt mention this fundamental economic fact, which was the whole reason they were losing money.Willski72 (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

'It should really mention that going on strike without a national ballot was against the law' - if this is mentioned surely it should be mentioned that a) Thatcher made it against the law and b) she did so as a direct point of trying to curb union power. Also, I would personally rather question why Scargill decided to break the law than just assume it was intransigence.

When British Coal was created in 1947 it nationalised 1100 coal mines. By 1970 there were only 293 left. In 1994 when the "Coal Industry Act" passed and the coal mines were privatised again there were 16 left. 800 coal mines shut down between 1947 and 1970.... But that never gets a look in because Scargill chose to make a stand with the last 300. The cotton industry that was the lifeblood of Lancashire (my County) went in the sixties and seventies. I could hold a personal vendetta against Wilson and Heath, but i dont, India did it cheaper, there's nothing they could do....Willski72 (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Relative to what

In the lead why not add to the sentence about decline 'she entered,, determined to reverse relative economic decline - ('relative decline' in the sense of a measurable lag in growth and improvement of living standards relative to other major advanced capitalist economies in the 60s and 70s'- there were no absolute falls in living standards at this time) (this is what lachrie said is meant by relative, but it doesn't say so in the article). If you use the word 'relative' shouldnt it be incumbent on you to say to what?. Sayerslle (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, although perphaps we can shorten the brackets down a bit because they seem a bit long!Willski72 (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

But a concern for how neat something looks, and wanting to get a gold star and a lollipop for the article, shouldn't overturn a concern for accuracy of meaning, clearness of meaning, and not everything left vague . 'The devil is in the detail' - it's an old saying, and in this article thats why the Thatcher lovers like to be a bit vague I reckon.Sayerslle (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The devils also in the small print, you've got to watch that small print!Willski72 (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Relativus, from late latin 'having reference or relation'

Thatcher entered 10 Downing St. determined to reverse the U.Ks relative economic decline. relative to what? The article doesn't say. It is meaningless. 'Reading the voluminous literature on British industrial decline a visitor to Britain in the 1970s or 1980s might have expected to find a country in economic collapse, with large absolute falls in living standards. On the contrary the economy made steady progress throughout the century.' (Andrew Gamble). Sayerslle (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Then we can just omit "relative" and leave it as "economic decline". Happyme22 (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Back it up, don't just make sweeping statements. there were no absolute falls in living standards, explain the 'decline', I know it's the lead, but a few deft sketches of the areas of the economy that had been destroyed in the long . long years , , er 74-79, since the Conservatives had left Britain in tip-top health, the streets paved with gold, and then in '79, she arrived to deal with the crumbling cities etc..etc.. - the language of 'decline' is fraught with political undertones and overtones. You are a lover of Reagan and this old cow, but have the decency to back up your idolatry. 92.17.81.237 (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussions above have already proven that many people across the political spectrum agree that the United Kingdom was in an economic decline at the time Thatcher ascended to office. We don't need to have one of our own discussion here. Please keep your personal political opinions to yourself, as they hold no weight here. And I'm going to ignore your personal attacks as well. Happyme22 (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going away to read Andrew Gamble 's book about the politics of 'decline' I think it is , and some others . I think the article is slanted, I dont enjoy discussion here for the sake of it. I'll try not to be so rude if I return, I get so angry , and then half an hour later I think, blimey, what did I say, I don't think rudeness helps wikipedia at all , so sorry about that. Sayerslle (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

92.17.81.237. No one mentioned that the economic decline was all Labours fault between 1974-79, only that their was relative economic decline before Thatcher (it doesnt say how far back), and it was one of her aims to stop it. Although it could be blamed on the Old Labour ideas of Nationalisation that the Conservatives decided to continue (up to 1979-obviously).Willski72 (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher as anti-trade unionism, or....

...anti the tightly knit cabal of Trots and Marxists who control(ed) and abused them? I don't think the Conservative Party ever said it was specifically against trade unionism in totality, even during the Thatcher period. They seem to have been against abuse and manipultion of the trade union system by subversive Trotskyites and Marxists like Scargill who were taking backhanders from the Soviet Union in the middle of the Cold War. I don't think this point is hammered home in the article and just makes out that Thatcher randomly attacked trade unionism just on a whim.[1] - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Good Lord - Most of your county would be going nuts if they read this. Thatcher attacked the trade unions for many reasons - you seriously think there was some kind of underlying concern for the well-being of the membership paying their subs but it being controlled by barons? May I note that most of the trade union reforms were not about trade union democracy but about trade union power! She forced them to have ballots to strike...fine, but is banning membership in certain sectors in the interests of their members? Is banning secondary picketing in the interests of their members? I could go on. She was clearly anti-union because she was a servant of business interests. She quoted Hayek and regarded unions as creating market distortions. On top of that, please read up on Soviet history before linking Trotskyists with anything after the death of Lenin - you might notice an event involving an ice-pick. Finally, things like - 'who control(ed)' reveal your bias. In what sense is it the case that marxists and trotskyists control the union movement if saint Thatcher undermined this 'cabal'?

You could have a point, i dont think the plan was to get rid of the trade unions altogether, only to weaken them and get rid of the barons who were holding the country hostage for their secular interests (the sort of thing she would say). This could become an oppossite of the Scargill toppling government thing, do we have any sources where Thatcher said that she was anti trade unionism in general....Willski72 (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Banning second picketing is certainly in the benefit of other industries that were also struggling to survive and didnt want to get mixed up in militant disputes. There is a very strong case to suggest that the militant tendency finally booted out of the Labour Party by Neil Kinnock had parasitically worked its way into what had once been quite civilised trade unions, leading them to increase demands and intimidation etc.Willski72 (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Small points

I have many problems with this article but I will keep it to some of the more straightforward points.

'proposals to close 20 uneconomic pits'

The whole debate at the time was surely what constitutes 'economic'? By assuming that unprofitable=uneconomic shows a narrow-minded neo-liberal bias. Maintaining a certain amount of the population employed rather than on state benefits might be considered more 'economic' than losing money in the sale of the product itself. This use of 'economic' also ignores that there may be some social good value in the actual product that is above its market value. e.g. maintaining energy security by having a domestic coal supply - or to put it another way, we could ask the question whether there is a difference between the economic benefit of a key piece of infrastructure such as a railway line and a high-class tailor, if both make the same amount of money?

'White liberals and black leaders accused Thatcher of pandering to xenophobia'

Referenced or not, she was accused of this by people of a wide-range of political persuations of different ethnic groups. Why are liberals when described necessarily white? Were there no black liberals? This almost seems to suggest that white people opposed her policy because of their beliefs whereas black people only opposed it because they percieved of it as targetting them. Also, were there not socialists, social democrats, anarchists, communists, etc opposing this policy (and I add of all different ethnicities)?

'and critics acknowledged that Thatcher's canalising of public concern "managed to marginalise the right-wing fringe'

This is contested. For a start, others have pointed to a decline in support for parties such as the National Front by people witnessing their violence at the Battle of Lewisham and other public displays of violence. Furthermore, it could be argued that whilst temporarily sucking up support from further right-wing groups, she may have fed the flames of xenophobia long-term. All of these opinions should be stated or the original statement removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenSingleton22 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe in her list of awards, it should also be listed that she was narrowly defeated by Tony Benn as BBC post-war political icon —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenSingleton22 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Dont know about the rest of your comment (some i agree with) but the 20 mines were considered uneconomical in the same way that 800 others had been between 1945 and 1979, many of which had been shut down by previous Labour governments. Cross party consensus on mine closures being economical?Willski72 (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are good points. It's like Lord Beeching in 1963 arguing what was economic with the railways, things don't look so clear-cut now, roads were just the fashion and a lot of half thought out thinking won the day. Unfortunately some very hard to reverse damage was done. The sentence about 'critics acknowledged Thatcher managed to..' is typical of the blunt technique of this article, when one critic in the Guardian becomes 'critics acknowledged' in the glint of an eye. When you really look at that paragraph it is a symptom of how sick this article is in its creation. Sayerslle (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher has tea

In the bit about her life after 2003 there is a bit about her going to see Brown and have a cup of tea , then a lengthy quote from Hague. The article , on the life and works of Thatcher, is harmed by such trivial edits, in my opinion. Does anyone object if I delete that trivial edit or is it enlightening and essential for the article?Sayerslle (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I rather like the part about Thatcher being invited back to 10 Downing Street. It seems to have been widely covered by the British press, and I like the element of a former Conservative PM being invited to her one-time home by a successive Labour PM.

If you want to talk about trivial edits, perhaps you should review some of your own that you recently made: [2], [3], [4],

The first[5], a sad attempt for "neutrality," makes me even question your good faith and intentions for the article. Attempting to portray Denis Thatcher as neglegent because he was not present at the time of his twins' birth is sad and totally uncalled for. Richard Nixon was not present at his daughter's birth simply because he was in the middle of a campaign and was not aware that his wife, Pat, had gone into labor. We do not know the circumstances surrounding Denis Thatcher's not being present at his twins' birth, and it is original research and stricly prohibited for us to guess, which is exactly what you did as indicated by your edit summary.

The second[6] needs a citation. It is not uncommon for children of high-ranking political figures to be left to a nanny or caregiver. I'm not defending the practice, but I'm saying that it is not uncommon. Again, we cannot infer from this that Thatcher was a "neglectful parent;" it seems to me that the only reason why are you including this is to attempt to make that point.

The third[7] is somewhat difficult to understand, as one must interpret the quotation to attempt to see the point. I take it that Carol Thatcher is saying that her mother wasn't there much while they were children and now that she is retired she is upset that she sees little of them. But it is riddled with POV, including "complained" and "less than sympathetic." Depending on whether the consensus decides to retain this new information or not, you could easily reword this in a NPOV fashion: "In her later years, Thatcher was disheartened that she was not able to see her children as much as she would like, as Mark was in South Africa and Carol in Switzerland." Interesting, here is a rather nice 2008 article written by Carol Thatcher praising her mother:[8]. I don't understand why you want to delete any mention of a visit to Downing Street upon invitation in 2008, but add in a somewhat difficult to interpret quotation attempting to label Thatcher as a poor parent.

The bottom line is that these additions are all trivial. The first two are best removed while the third should be discussed. Just because there are concerns regarding NPOV, one cannot engage in a free-for-all of adding negative information, citing "balance." Happyme22 (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I read an article about Carol that said Denis was at a cricket match when she was born, I don't understand what you mean by calling that original research. I don't even understand why you call that 'a sad attempt at neutrality' - it is a biographical detail of the Thatchers lives isn't it? I didn't delete ' any mention of a visit to Downing St upon invitation in 2008' - why are you so careless about the things you write...same as ' a somewhat difficult to interpret quotation attempting to label Thatcher ..' it's a straight quote from Carol, why did you panic and think 'oh gawd, this quote must be interpreted'..I think Carol can speak for herself and the quote for itself..I'm aware that Carol had a warm relationship with her father especially towards the end of his life, that doesnt change the facts of nanny and boarding school - I didn't comment on the nanny, just added a fact about the years covered in that section. Why you consider these details trivial, that are about flesh and blood realities, confuses me.Sayerslle (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Happyme22 about the additions he cited. "In the same year her twin children Carol and Mark were born, delivered by Caesarean section while their father watched a Test match at the Oval" is so clearly an attempt to pass judgement on Denis Thatcher. Indeed, I think the article "on the life and works of Thatcher, is harmed by such trivial edits".--Britannicus (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not an attempt to pass judgment on Denis Thatcher, it is a fact. I know that as a fact, it will have a hard time surviving, a straightforward biographical fact will get removed , while a load of crypto-fascist edits get protected. Thats the way it is.Sayerslle (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you identify these "crypto-fascist" edits?--Britannicus (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Generally what I meant is the article manages to create an atmosphere of admiration for this 'strong' right wing leader while making pretty rubbish attempts to cover its tracks. One specific edit that jumps out at me is that when Thatcher spoke about fears of being swamped by people of a 'different culture' , ' white liberals and black leaders' accused Thatcher of..but she got 10k letters of support , so the equation is Thatcher plus people vs. white liberals and black leaders , that looks like a classic crypto-fascist equation to me, Who even talks like that, 'white liberals and black leaders' ,except the political far right? On the Denis Thatcher thing, I read on the Carol Thatcher page that the twins were six weeks premature, so maybe my edit summary was jumping to conclusions about his neglectfulness, but the sentence remains factually correct , in any case. Sayerslle (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

So Thatcher, the elected leader of the Conservative Party, made a comment saying she wanted to conserve her culture in some form? Well its hardly Robert Mugabe sort of stuff is it. I think its fair to presume (along with the fact of the 10 thousand letters of support) that most British people are not self-loathing and are comfortable with their own culture enough not to want to see it destroyed. Its not really a surprise that her opponents are in the minority there. Associating a slight nod to social Conservatism as "crypto-fascism", seems quite crypto-fascist itself... this sort of politically correct newspeak of course comes from Adorno and friends, not a NPOV. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sayerslle, I don't think there is anything "crypto-fascist" about the part on Thatcher's view on immigration. The popular support she got (including from traditionally Labour supporters) is a undeniable fact (I thought you liked them so much). She did get condemned by white liberals and black leaders (another fact!). Just because you disagree with Thatcher's views on immigration doesn't mean that it should be portrayed in a bad light in the article.--Britannicus (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Who even talks like that, 'white liberals and black leaders,' except the political far right?" Well Labour have set things up to make minority leaders like the Muslim Council of Britain who are, suppossedly, able to speak for all the Muslims of Britain. Unless Labour's far right as well....!Willski72 (talk) 11:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If the point about Dennis Thatcher being away at birth is left in it should mention that the children were six weeks premature and that no husband could possibly have guessed that they would be born then.Willski72 (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sayerslle, I have no real opinion on Maggie, but for the fact that you wish to project your views of her onto the article, makes me think twice. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Addressing some of the issues in the article and the talk page discussions

Bear with me, this is my first contribution to Wikipedia in any form, though I've used the website for years to look up interesting things in my spare time.

To give a brief and hopefully relevant background, I encountered the Thatcher page after reading a BBC article which made mention of her. After reading through the article, with no prior opinions of Margaret Thatcher other than my vague knowledge of her controversial status as a former politician, I felt there were omissions in the article, and was unsurprised to find a neutrality tag at the top of the page. I decided to read through some of the talk page discussions and what I found motivated me to make an account and post here with my observations. The point of mentioning this is that a random outsider, with absolutely no political knowledge of Thatcher, knew something was off-balance with the article.

Specifically, I wanted to find the "Criticisms," "Controversies" or other such sections that usually accompany articles about politicians and famous leaders. Having failed to find this, I read through the article and found very little material covering opposing viewpoints to her political decisions and policies.

Here are the issues I would like to bring attention to:

1) The lack of coverage of criticisms, controversies and events that might place Thatcher in a negative way is apparent, and to address this issue I will cite examples of other articles and how the presentation of information reflects both "views" on the subject.

2) For those editors who are being accused of political bias against Thatcher, I sympathize with your overall message. Unfortunately I think the presentation of opposing views was done in such a way as to make yourselves appear as politicizing and personally biased, which causes other editors to quickly assume an agenda and a lack of objectivity. Strong language such as "raping our national industry" thus obfuscated the intention of the editor making the comment, which from what I can tell was to genuinely and objectively assess the article. In the future I suggest presenting the "opposing" information from a more objective context, perhaps citing sources such as polls or political commentary that indicates significantly large amounts of people share those opposing views. This way there can be no argument about whether the opposing views represent a legitimate presence in history and society, or simply the individual views of the editors.

3) There seems to be some disparity among editors about how "significant" opposing views must be in order to be considered relevant for inclusion in an article. From my skimming of the wiki article covering article neutrality, there do not seem to be rigid, thorough and encompassing guidelines regarding what constitutes "significant enough to be relevant." It seems to me though that, if in the context of an article about a controversial political figure, there are policies and decisions that warranted an outcry or criticisms from any well-known ethnic or political minority, there should be mention in a neutral article. The fact that some people referred to "regional bias" at all is indicative of the fact that regional bias exists in the first place, which sets the stage for the discussion of and inclusion of opposing views.

To expand on point 1 and to help clarify point 3, here are some observations of other articles that could be considered under the "same category." In particular I want to talk about the articles for the last few US Presidents and UK Prime Ministers. Notably, the articles for Gordon Brown and Barrack Obama contain few criticisms, but that may be due to the fact that they were more recently elected and there is less historical material to cover (more an issue for Mr. Obama than Mr. Brown).

Tony Blair The article for Tony Blair does contain a small criticism section, and throughout the article there are mentions of criticisms for some of the decisions he made as PM. Some examples copied straight from the article: - "The alliance between Bush and Blair seriously damaged Blair's standing in the eyes of many UK citizens.[124]" - "In 2006 Blair was criticised for his failure to immediately call for a ceasefire in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, with members of his cabinet openly criticising Israel." - "Blair's apparent refusal to set a date for his departure was criticised by the British press and Members of Parliament"

George W. Bush This article does not contain a criticisms section, which is surprising especially in light of the fact that the article does make mention of the former President having the lowest approval ratings in 70 years. The article does however address some criticisms throughout the article. Here are directly copied examples: - "While not permitted by the U.S. Army Field Manuals which assert "that harsh interrogation tactics elicit unreliable information",[230] the Bush administration believed these enhanced interrogations "provided critical information" to preserve American lives.[232] Critics, such as former CIA officer Bob Baer, have stated that information was suspect, "you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough."[233]" - "President Bush has been criticized internationally and targeted by the global anti-war and anti-globalization campaigns, particularly for his administration's foreign policy.[306][307]" - "In 2006, a majority of respondents in 18 of 21 countries surveyed around the world were found to hold an unfavorable opinion of Bush. Respondents indicated that they judged his administration as negative for world security.[317][318]"

John Major The article for former PM John Major does not contain a criticisms section, but does include mention of criticisms throughout the article. Examples: - "Conversely on occasions he attracted criticism for dogmatically pursuing complex and unworkable schemes favoured by the right of his party, notably the privatisation of British Rail, and for closing down most of the coal industry." - "Major kept his economic team unchanged for seven months after Black Wednesday before he replaced Norman Lamont with Kenneth Clarke as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Such a delay, on top of the crisis, was exploited by Major's critics as proof of the indecisiveness that was to undermine his authority through the rest of his premiership." These however are the only sections of the article which use the term "criticism" and "controversy" does not appear in the article at all.

Bill Clinton As before, the Clinton article does not contain a separate criticisms/controversies section, but does make mention of criticisms throughout the article: - "Clinton did not join the ROTC program, but the temporary ROTC status prevented him from being drafted. This was not illegal, but it became a source of criticism from conservatives and some Vietnam veterans.[24][25][26]" - "While this action was popular, Clinton's attempt to fulfill another campaign promise of allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve in the armed forces garnered criticism from the left (for being too tentative in promoting gay rights) and from the right (who opposed any effort to allow homosexuals to serve)" - "Some gay rights advocates criticized Clinton for not going far enough and accused him of making his campaign promise to get votes and contributions.[38][39]"

Margaret Thatcher Coming back to the Thatcher article, there is some mention of criticisms. - "Defence Secretary Michael Heseltine, who had pushed the Agusta deal, resigned in protest after this, and remained an influential critic and potential leadership challenger." - "In 1999, during Thatcher's first speech to a Conservative Party conference in nine years, she contended that Britain's problems came from continental Europe.[171] Her comments aroused some criticism from Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a former Foreign Secretary under Sir John Major, who said that Lady Thatcher's comments could give the impression that Britain is prejudiced against Europe.[171]" - "But Thatcher was also a controversial figure, in that her premiership was also marked by high unemployment and social unrest.[199] Many critics fault her economic policies for the unemployment level.[200]"

The last quote, the "Thatcher was also a controversial figure" quote seems to be the only major discussion of significant controversies during her term as PM. Aside from that, the only mentions of controversies and criticisms are attributed not to groups, but to individual politicians and policymakers. All politicians have controversies, some more than others, and for a politician with a reputation for being controversial to have little discussion of this on a Wikipedia page is an alarming omission. There does not seem to be a lack of sources, though the quality of the sources (too many 'obscure' news articles instead of firsthand accounts through books, as has been mentioned by other editors) may be an issue. The omission of politicizing and controversial events (i.e. Libya, others) is a very significant issue that needs addressing.

---

Unfortunately some of the issues I have seen apply to all of these articles in general, and I'm not sure if there is a talk page about the "general structure" of certain kinds of articles on Wikipedia but I did notice that:

- "Summary" sections, which seem to be aimed at summarizing the politician's term, are very short, often to the point of omitting historically significant portions of the politician's legacy. If the purpose of these summary sections is to give a reader a very brief synopsis of years of governance, then they serve that purpose well. However, one big issue I am noticing is that sometimes the very short summaries make mention of significant facts (such as Thatcher being a controversial figure) that are not mentioned in more detail or elaborated on throughout the rest of the article. This does a great disservice to readers who may want to learn more in-depth information about certain important events. I myself learned nothing about why Thatcher was controversial and still know little to nothing.

- The lack of separate "controversies" and "criticisms" sections within the article is understandable, as from what I've observed elsewhere on Wikipedia they seem to be looked down upon at this time. However I think the clipping of these sections from articles may be doing a disservice to the balance of the articles, since there is a noticeable lack of discussion of criticisms throughout the rest of the articles. This isn't a strongly significant issue for the rest of them, but is for the Thatcher article. Enterprising Futurist (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A quick comment on this, we do have a style page that describes the debate around criticism sections, it can be found at WP:CRITS and also at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure. Featured articles, which are meant to be Wikipedia's best work and have to undergo peer reviews, are generally discouraged from having criticism sections. Quick summary: criticism sections are seen as evidence of bad writing, the criticisms should be worked into the text. The trouble is, this article describes such a polarising figure that there will always be two point of views around every subject. As such, the text can swing from one view to the other. At the moment this article doesn't have the right balance and I don't believe it is neutral. The trouble is editors on both sides are a bit entrenched as you noticed above. Woody (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha, i cant argue with that Woody and i also think that Enterprising Futurist has a point. One of the main problems with some of it is that there is no middle ground, it was either good or bad depending on your viewpoint. The only thing you could do is go right through the article and say, what she did, why she did it, and why she is criticised for that. And basically go right through the 11 years.Willski72 (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)