Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Criticism section

Where is it. Maggie attracted some of the harshest and most pronlonged criticism of any politician in modern times - yet this read reads like a hagiography.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hatchet job sections go against NPOV policy. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You obviously believe in Saint Margaret, Yorkshirian - it must be wonderful - next life I'm coming back as a conservative. Paul Austin (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the point is that Wikipedia guidelines and good writing practices dictate that separate criticism sections shouldn't be in articles. The neutral thing to do is to to integrate into the text. Having a separate criticism section would just be overwhelming and would just turn into a cesspit. Regards, Woody (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

We need a list of prominent politicians in recent history etc and we need to see how many of them have criticism sections. For example: George Bush, Tony Blair, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, Edward Heath, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton (for a bit of variety!), Clement Attlee, Harold Macmillan....... Anymore?--Willski72 (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

So far George W Bush doesnt have one and Tony Blair has a short one part way through the article.--Willski72 (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither Harold Wilson or James Callaghan or Edward Heath or Ronald Reagan have one.--Willski72 (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

And none of the last three do either.--Willski72 (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

please check the birth year of the husband of margaret thatcher..it should be 1915 and not 1951..

i know it is only a typo, but wanted to bring to your notice.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K c arikatla (talk • contribs) 11:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, however 1951 is correct in the instance in which you are referring to, because the date is the date of marraige, not the date of birth. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Shocked

I have enjoyed browsing wikipedia for a few years now, and have found it generally enjoyable. However, I must admit I find this article shocking. Many other in/famous figures have sections devoted to their failures and crimes. I did not know that wikipedia is an extremist view, British controlled website(some mods anyway)

Anyway, the article is complete. Where does it say that she allowed a freely elected member of British parliment die of starvation? At the time there was an international outcry, and protests and negative media views were expressed in countries including: Australia, Russia, Norway, The United states of America, France, Italy and Cuba. Indeed, in some of these countries, protests were held over the incident.

Margret Tatcher started an Illegal war, colluded with terrorists and allowed people to die.

This is my opinion and some may disagree, but the fact is many people share my beliefs, so they should be ON HER PAGE.

Come on mods, have some sense and let the article be balanced, like the vast majority of other articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.125.60.154 (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As you acknowledge three lines up, that is all your opinion. It is your opinion that Thatcher is a criminal, your opinion that Thatcher allowed someone to starve, your opinion that Thatcher launched an illegal war.... Sorry bud, but your opinion doesn't hold any weight on Wikipedia. The opinions of the editors are irrelevant. Happyme22 (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If a leadership figure causes controversy then it is worthy of discussion. Ever heard of the phrase - the silence is deafening?

So, because in his third paragraph he includes his own opinion, you see fit to ignore his second paragraph which is factual (disclaimer, I'm not saying the list of countries is 100% correct, but there was substantial international criticism)? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sands made the explicit choice to starve himself to death (suicide), Thatcher didn't force nor enourage him to so; I don't see why it should be fawned over in this article? Under the governance of every elected leader, somebody somewhere decides that their life isn't worth living. Fact of life. Can't recall any "illegal" war during the Thatcher period. I recall a military dictatorship invading an island which doesn't belong to them, for populist appeal, then getting promptly turned around and booted back out by a country with superior military capabilities. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Except Bobby Sands' death wasn't suicide... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sands acted like a spolit child would to get attention. He knew full well that not consuming food would lead to him starving to death. He took this choice entirely under his own initiative; thus he commited suicide, he killed himself not Thatcher. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hook, line, sinker, rod and copy of Angling Times! You will find that neither Sands' death certificate or the coroner's verdict contain the word suicide (Philosophy, Vol. 59, No. 229 (Jul., 1984) by Terence M. O'Keeffe). As for the rest of your little rant that is of no relevance to improving this article, you might want to read the many books that deal with the hunger strike, in particular ones which deal with the Sands' assessment of the situation and his motivation from December 1980 onwards, then you may realise how wrong you are. Now have you quite finished using this talk page as a soapbox for your own incorrect views? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a podium for Marxian sociology and archaic libels on former Prime Ministers for their refusal to backdown to blackmail, either. Its an encyclopedia. The person solely responsible for the death of Sands, was himself, in an act of nihilism. There are WP:V sources which describe it as "suicide" - the only people who seem to think otherwise are fans and appeasing apologists.[1] If in a similar case Marxist-Leninist serial killer and member of terrorist organisation ETA; Iñaki de Juana Chaos had starved himself to death, as promised, it would have been suicide, no responsibility of the Spanish Prime Minister. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This is like shooting fish in a barrel. Sands' death cannot be reliably sourced as suicide, because it wasn't suicide. That's a fact, albeit one that most neanderthal British nationalists struggle to understand. His death certificate doesn't say suicide, neither does the coroner's verdict, and he wouldn't have received an ecclesiastical burial if his death was a suicide. That many rabid right wing British nationalists and their apologist propagandists consider his death to be a suicide can be sourced, but that does not change the fact that his death was not a suicide. Let me know when you've finished being pwned eh? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what rag waving "nationalism" has to do with anything? So far as I can see the only relation nationalism has to this discussion is the fact that Sands was a rabid exponent of that French Revolutionry ideology. Did you read the academic reference? According to you the world media are "British nationalists"? Basil Hume, a cardinal, was a "British nationalist"? People kill themselves all the time, starvation when you absolutely are able to eat if you wanted to, falls under the solid definition of suicide. As I pointed out before, Wikipedia isn't here to present a bias podium for Communism in Ireland and its lobby in GB (such as yourself). As for childish language like "pwned"-I never said I was for or against the Marxist trend of starving themselves—rather that it shouldn't be presented in articles as anything other than suicide (and presented a reference academic journal to back my position up, something you haven't done). - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess you either missed or purposefuly ignored the academic journal I referenced that deals with what Sands' death certificate says and what the verdict of the coroner was? Do you have difficulty understanding English? I could not care one iota what your academic source says, as all it says is the opinion of the writer and him reporting the opinion of others. What does an English priest have to do with an Irish Catholic? You seem oblivious to the fact Ireland has its own church. Not only that, but standards of morality and judgement on issues vary from place to place and culture to culture, but I wouldn't expect Anglocentric people to appreciate that. Do you understand the difference between fact and opinion, or is that something you have difficulty with too? The word "suicide" does not appear on his death certificate or the coroner's verdict, therefore it is a fact that his death was not a suicide. Your ignorant spouting off is only making you look very silly and is of no relevance to this article, so shoo before I find an admin who'll be willing to do the world a favour and reinstate your fully deserved ban. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a ludicrous ignorance of cause and effect. He starved himself for a reason, Thatcher was behind that reason. By the same strand you are arguing that a man that runs towards gunfire in a war is committing suicide - but some might say such a comment ignores context. oh dear, just like you did, oops.

"He starved himself for a reason, Thatcher was behind that reason", by the same strand you are arguing that if i didnt like your above comment i could starve myself to death and it would be your fault for posting that comment. It would only have been murder if she had purposefully taken away his food or reduced it to such low amounts that he could not possibly have survived, thats law. A mans whim to kill himself is suicide, its as clear cut as that.Willski72 (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As much as you all like to argue and debate the fact is this article is very one sided and pro-thatcher. Why is there only sections on how successful she was and not on how her harshness left Britain with a somewhat torn image? This woman basically inspired football hooliganism and she looked down on the working class of Britain as second class citizens with no real power. There should be no opinion in this article but its only fair to include how she created a terrible image for herself. As for the Bobby Sands situation i think we should just leave that out. It is far to complicated and it is almost a guarantee that it will turn into an edit war with opinions clearly shown. The article is too biased. You cannot simply pick and choose history, all details, good and bad, have to be included. User:Jamie Kelly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.169.111 (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher and the end of the Cold War

Given articles such as this, this and this about her feelings regarding the reunification of Germany and loss of Soviet control over Eastern Europe, should we add this info and possibly revise the description of her role in the end of the Cold War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.218.83 (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This article currently says that one of Thatcher's legacies is to end the cold war. However, that contradicts news reports (see Google news search) that say she opposed unification of Germany, and opposed changing Eastern Europe's borders, opposed the the break down of the Warsaw Pact, and did not want to 'decommunise' the USSR.--Lester 16:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

other intresting article bbc:Thatcher's fight against German unity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.89.205 (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The context must be kept in mind, Britain and France feared that a reunified Germany would be once again rabidly expansionist in Europe[2] and would spread socialist authoritarianism to the West. When taking into account the European Union in the way it is presently set out and ran, a strong argument could be made that she was correct. Don't forget that in Europe, the communists were never truely smited (not a shot was fired, no thorough purge) they rather slithered off into safe "social democratic" self-proclaimed posts and continue to manipulate our society with Marxist ideas to this day. Lost one world and gained another. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see that Red Peril theories are alive in well in the more obscure corners of English Nationalism. The references above indicate a general "pro-British interest" rather than any "end of the cold war", as such they should be included and the current statements qualified. --Snowded ^TALK 07:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher wasn't a "English nationalist" as far as I'm aware, quite sure she was pro-British. And certainly that was her pragmatic intent in regards to this. Though it is nice to see that for English immigrants in Wales the term "England" still resonates as "staunchy non-red". - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference was to you not Thatcher Yorkshirian, and to an "obscure corner" (and my father whose father's father came from the north-east always supported the norse origin of Snowden).

I fail to see why any clarification is needed there. The article says "They contend she contributed greatly".. it clearly states this is the opinion of her supporters rather than stating it as fact, it doesnt mention why or how. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

'it doesn't mention how or why..' Its just verbiage. 'Thatcher thought that she and Reagan overthrew the Soviet Union, but the fact is that, like Old Labour, it simply fell apart. It is justice of the most poetic kind that Thatchers is now the evil empire and Thatcherism a dirty word.' Germaine Greer writing in April. Sounds nearer the truth than the fantasies of her admirers. The myths about Thatcher are starting to fade. The millionaires decorative wife with the fake cut-glass accent, made over into the no-nonsense grocers daughter, the housewife superstar who was not an economist, the woman with a powerful moral sense inherited from her strict Methodist father, who admired philandering lowlifes and liars like Jeffrey Archer, and Cecil Parkinson - couldn't get close enough to them. Sayerslle (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Mrs Green's article describes her position as an anarchist, communist and feminist all rolled into one. Oh dear... oh dear, oh dear. Non the less, I think this sort of talk is about a decade behind the times. Very 1994. The term "New Labour" has replaced "Thatcherism" as a by-word for contempt in Britain. Even Up North the moaning about "the pits" and Thatcher has been largely replaced by a mass disillusioned contempt of Labour. We seem to be veering a bit off topic at this point though. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that Thatcher deserves particular credit for "ending the Cold War". Sure, she advocated a strong defence posture and said that Gorbachev was "a man she could do business with". But as Tod Lindberg says here,[3] The UK was not the Western Front in the Cold War. Surely, Helmut Kohl’s decision to go ahead with the deployment of Pershing and cruise missiles in the early 1980s, in the face of hundreds of thousands of West Germans protesting in the streets, establishes the German chancellor as a more consequential figure in this regard. It's also interesting to note that Peter Hennessy's chapter on Thatcher in The British Prime Minister scarcely comments at all on her role in the Cold War.Pondle (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I shall here quote a letter written to "The Times" newspaper and published on Monday September 14th of this year (ie 2009!). Alas i did not purchase the paper which printed the article that this letter mentions.

"Sir, i am glad that the archival documents i supplied have recieved so much attention in Michael Binyon's excellent article on German re-unification. But, obviously, not all aspects of that complex subject could fit in the newspaper format. Having studied the whole archive through and through, I have a few words to say in defence of Baroness Thatcher. Contrary to what she thought, the reunification was not at all about Germany's strength or weakness, but about defeating communism and ending the Soviet occupation of Europe. In this sense, the most important question was not the unification itself, but how, when and on whose terms it would happen. She got it wrong at first, and was nearly manipulated into supporting the Gorbachev-Mitterand plan, ie gradual unification of Germany and Europe in a socialist "common European home". But when the chips were down, she would not take this nonsense; and it was largely her efforts that kept Germany in Nato as a democratic Western nation, The most astonishing thing I discovered in these documents is how the world leaders saw themselves as an elite club, a team of architects designing a brave new world order, responsible to each other first, and to their nations (at best) second. In this regard, Lady Thatcher was a fortunate exception. And for this reason-all her earlier faults and follies notwithstanding- she ended up on the right side of the argument: on the same side as millions of ordinary people, in Germany and elsewhere, who rejected socialism of any colour. PAVEL STROILOV"

I have qouted completely, verbatim and unabridged and i ask you to make of it what you will. Putting the ideology aside it can then be said that she DID have a considerable influence in shaping the future of Germany, though not in the way that the argument normally follows. Whether she was right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion, like most politics. Though this is not conclusive proof for anything it opens up a new area of interest and is a source.--Willski72 (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The intention of Scargill

On the trade union section and the bit dealing with the miners strike it says ' NUM president Arthur Scargill made no secret of his intention to bring down the Thatcher government, as the miners had the Heath government in 1974.' That's a quote I'd like to verify, it seems strange, unfortunately the reference is to p.6 of the 'Globe and Mail', that well known Canadian newspaper and difficult to check. Such an incendiary quote must have been reported in a British newspaper, the reference is useless as supplying verification. I think its invented but if it isn't I'd like the chance to read where he made this intention clear. 92.10.180.241 (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Try not to be a conspiracy theorist, the same could be said for any user who adds a reference to a book. The globe and mail does have a website. Woody (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I can order a book , how the hell can I get to check a very dubious claim made on p.6 of a Toronto newspaper in the mid 1980s? If Scargill made no secret of his intention to bring the government down it would have been widely reported in the British press. He was fighting pit closures, if he'd really said what's claimed here it would have hurt his cause. He made no secret of his hatred for the government, so what, thats not the same thing and if a British newspaper reference can't be given let the people who have access to this Canadian source for the quote , give it in full. Who is the conspiracy theorist , me asking for a verifiable quote or people saying a Marxist led union sought to bring the Government down?Sayerslle (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The conspiracy theorist is someone who does not assume good faith in other users and presumes that they are intent on nefarious deeds. I have quoted from the Globe and Mail before, it is the Times for Canada; not the CIA or MI5 in disguise. I think you could find a lot of people or even quotes that say Scargill wanted to topple the Government. Take this from the Independent for example: "...any critics may well reply that if this had been his only aim during the 1984-85 miners' dispute, when more than twice as many pits and jobs were at stake, the industry would not be in its present sorry state. But Arthur Scargill, convinced Marxist, wanted to topple the government. He failed. Indeed, the defeat of the miners enabled Margaret Thatcher to claim an equivalent of the Falklands war triumph on the home front. He has failed in much else, too."

In terms of the exact quote, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Regards, Woody (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sure I could find a lot of people who say Arthur Scargill wanted to topple the government. So what? I want to marry Nicola Sanders, do I therefore intend to marry Nicola Sanders. Even if Scargill had been asked ' Do you want to see an end to Thatchers govt. ' and he said yes, that isn't the same thing as the propagandist tainted ' Scargill made no secret of his intention to topple the government. Anyway the burden of evidence is to give the quote from Scargill, I'd just like to see it. I admit I am a conspiracy theorist if it means not assuming good faith on the part of user:lachrie, I would assume myself born yesterday if I assumed good faith from that quarter. It is good to assume good faith, but it's important to keep ones wits too. Sayerslle (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Then reword it; something like "Scargill wanted to topple the Thatcher Government, much like the Heath Government was removed in 1974.<reference><reference><reference>" Woody (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I really cannot seem the problem with the current statement, Globe and Mail is a relaiable source, The Indy article further confirms it, and I'm sure I've read similar statements before elsewhere. As is said, the miners had done the same in 74 - there's no suggestion taht the toppling is by anything other than democratic means, make the government so unpopular that it loses the next election. David Underdown (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Indy article 'confirms' nothing. It's third hand comment. The fact that you're 'sure you read similar statements before elsewhere', ...well find them, with arthur scargill enunciating this intention to topple. If you don't see that 'intention' to 'topple' is politically tendentious you are more innocent than you have a right to be. The burden of evidence lies with the person who supplied this elusive quote from scargill about his intentions. It seems to me if Scargill had made such an intention clear during the strike it would have been a dumb own goal. Perhaps he did , but I want to see the words from his mouth at the time, and not ' An Indy article ' years later said such and such, or the globe and mail in canada had an article that said he intended such and such. Why doesnt the editor who supplied the reference just let us see the article? Sayerslle (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

He may have made it clear to those around him without it being reported at the time so it's only later that it would become common knowledge. You are the only one arguing that the current sourcing is insufficient, so the the article should remain in its original state until you have consensus for the removal of sorced information. As I say there is no indication that the toppling was to be anything other than democratic means, by exercising the fundamental rights to strike and to peaceful protest-in fact it seems to me that given his political convictions it would be more remarkable had he not waned to see the end of the Thatcher government. As to your complaint about me "threatening" you with the 3rr rule, and claiming that only Woody and I had reverted you, Lachrie also reverted your deletion of this material [4], and it is a requirement that it can be shown that anyone reported for a breach of 3rr has been warned of the existence of the rule. As for further sources, here is Kinnock on Scargill and the strike earlier this year,

He gave himself the credit for the success of the 1974 strike [which helped bring down the Heath government] but that was much exaggerated. He had the illusion that if the workers were united, they could destabilise, even overthrow a democratically elected government. That was the falsehood of Scargill's conclusion, and that is why I have always condemned him. The miners deserved something much better.

— http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/13/simon-hoggarts-sketch-neil-kinnock

The third reverter, Lachrie, is the user who included the dubious material so I concluded his was not a disinterested action. ' He may have made it clear to those around him without it being reported..' But the quote says 'He made no secret of his intention..'So was it a secret intention revealed to those close, or did he 'make no secret of his intention'.. Anyway he may have etc.. it won't do. ' There is no indication that the toppling was to be anything other than democratic means..' I think that's naïve ..There's actually no explanation of how he intended to effect this toppling, it's left very vague, and sinister sounding. In fact Scargill can not topple a government - it's a weird sentence really and that's why I deleted it..'As for further sources, heres Kinnock , speaking in 2009...' I think for the sake of decency the allegation that Scargill made no secret of his intention to topple the government it requires a quote from Scargill, a contemporary quote from Scargill from 84/85, not a quote from Kinnock in 2009. Again, how naïve are you being to think that Kinnock is a good source of trustworthy quotes about Arthur Scargill. Personally I wouldn't trust a word Kinnock said including the words, the and and, ... If Kinnock says Scargill thought he could overthrow the government, where are the quotes to support this, from the period, that's all I'm asking to read. Is it Lord Kinnock yet?, what a joke he was. Why can't we read this segment from the globe and mail and then it can be settled, can't it? The quote from Kinnock clearly says Scargill sought to overthrow a democratically elected govt. which you are suggesting as backup for material that gives ' no indication that the toppling was to be anything other than democratic means..' I don't deny he wanted to see an end to the Thatcher government, but you can't see any difference between saying that, and the sentence I dispute, and for that there's no help really. Don't you at least concede it would be good to see first hand quotes from Arthur ?Sayerslle (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

While in general I approve of the recent scrutiny of this article for neutrality issues, I'm having a hard time understanding why you didn't just change the word "intention" to "desire" here and consider it fixed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Why I didn't change it is because I haven't seen the source and if I change 'intention' to 'desire' and 'topple' which is an ideologically suggestive word, to ' see voted out of office' I'd be interfering with what the source said . I'm having a hard time understandiing why you think I should falsify quotes I haven't even seen. 'Intend' ' want' it's all the same - no it aint, this is alice in wonderland stuff , you might as well say, ' I see what I eat' is the same as , 'I eat what I see'. Where is the quote? If it says 'his intention to topple', am I entitled to change it to , ' his desire to see voted out of office.'?? Sayerslle (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Errr, calm down. The line in question is not a quote, so you wouldn't "falsifying" it by changing it. How good a paraphrasing that sentence is obviously requires access to the source, but I don't see that assuming that a source you haven't witnessed is a malicious representation is a better idea than assuming that whoever paraphrased said source for this article made an error in wording it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The article itself I'm assuming backed up its assertion that Scargill etc..This is tedious, yeh, put the sentence back then, -no-one has malicious intentions to misrepresent anything, I know that, no-one has any animus against Arthur Scargill, I know that, I know every editor who has contributed to the Thatcher article has tried their best to make it neutral. I will calm down, thanks. Thatcher did have to do something about the state of the country, I realise that, I'm sorry I've been wasting your time. Sayerslle (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not presented as a verbatim quote though, so I don't see too much problem in rewording slightly, looking again, the wording that was not in the article is not topple but "bring down". You are insisting on contemporary soruces, but since the strike happened in 1984 before the growth of the internet these are unsurprisingly difficult to find, and where a reference has been made to a contemporary newspaper you are objecting becuase you cannot easily read it yourself, if it's not online you are going to have to trust the original editor if he presents you with direct quotes from that article. I have been able to establish via The Times archive (subscription only I'm afraid) that Scargill gave an interview to the Morning Star which was published on 29 March in which unsurprisingly given that paper there was much talk about class struggle, so this seems the most likely place to find a direct expression on these sorts of views, but I've no idea how to track down a copy of this article, short of a trip to the British Library newspaper centre. The Kinnock article was part of a series in The Guardian abou the 25th anniversary of the strike, Scargill's own refelctions from that series are at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/07/arthur-scargill-miners-strike and if you search the website using the title of that article you will find all sorts of letters from people involved at the time. Since the disputed wording here makes clear reference to the earlier fall of the Heath government, commonly regarded a resultign from earlier miners' strikes I completely fail to see why there is this automatic presumption by you that to refer to Scargill intending to bring down the Thatcher government in the same manner is unclear or some sort of "dirty tricks" against Scargill. David Underdown (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a verbatim quote though, yeah, well , precisely.Sayerslle (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

thinking about it, and I have to go out to place a bet on the New York Mets, I think that would be a good solution , a verbatim quote from Scargill. 'And Scargill made no secret of his intention to bring down Thatcher too. As he said in the Morning Star of march 84 or whatever it is, ' And this struggle isn't just about pit closures, it will go on..I intend to bring down the Government too.' This would illustrate that Thatcher had a fight not only to close the mines but also to defend the whole democratic system. So , find the quote and then I think that would be better. I can't do this myself as I have no such verbatim quote. Sayerslle (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Or we cange tack, there's plenty of contemporary comment, and quotes such as those from Kinnock that demonstrate that the strike was widely perceived as being in part an attempt to use union power to bring down the government, following the precendent of 1974, taht way we're not tied to having to prove Scargill's precise intentions. David Underdown (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer that, because it wouldn't ascribe to Scargill certain intentions, that I don't think have been proved he had, but only say 'some perceived him as having wider intentions than fighting pit closures', which isn't really controversial I suppose. I still don't even see why it's so clear-cut that the miners got rid of Heath, I mean there were elections involved there too, but I admit I don't know the history at all of the Heath government and its demise. Sayerslle (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually looking through the contemporary Times further, I see that on 26 June 1984 they re-printed a 1975 interview originally given by Scargill to New Left Review explaining the tactics used in earlier strikes, and very much wrapped in the terminology of class war and a fight agaisnt the government. On 20 July 1984 Peter Walker in a leader for The Times quotes further from a 1981 Scargill interview in Marxism Today which again makes Scargill's position pretty clear, even allowing for Walker's obvious bias. You may find you have access to The Times archive via your local library, in which case you'll be able to find these article by seraching on "new left review", or it may be possible for me to send you the pdfs of the original articles. Yes these views actually predate the strike, but I can't find that he disavowed them at any time. David Underdown (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course if a government picks a fight with Scargills industry, seeks to destroy it, , he will fight back, that is unsurprising to me, again the fact that you can't see the difference between a determination to fight a government policy,or let's say 'fight the government', and an intention to bring down a government , I dont know, I suspect we come from such different political traditions that we are losing each other in translation..you quote the times in 84, ,heaping Pelion on Ossa, as they scrambled in back issues of new left review, engaged in a war to discredit Scargill....the piece in the article in any case clearly intends us to understand that during the strike Scargill made no secret of his intention to bring down the Government...if a contemporary quote can't be found, I find that sentence dishonourable, but in the end I'm sure the Thatcher lovers will write what they want armed with their worthless scraps from the express and mail and telegraph and times that prove she was right about everything .Sayerslle (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well its not going to be in the bloody Guardian is it, the sun shone out of Scargill's backside with the Guardian.Willski72 (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the sourcing is disputed, why hasn't a quote been provided as WP:V recommends? Giving a link to the website isn't particularly helpful since the online archive doesn't go back that far. I will have much more to say on this once this has been dealt with. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

So, how about that quote saying what the source actually says then please? Once we get the quote out of the way, other issues can be addressed. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

One week and counting for a quote from the source.....or, shall I assume, as you have done on other occasions I have documented ready for future use, that the source doesn't actually say what you added to the article? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well i've never read it and i dont know where it is, otherwise i would give it to you!--Willski72 (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

About the toppling the govenment thing: on youtube there is a video clip of Andrew Marr's documentary of modern Britain where Scargill was filmed during a 'rally' or whatever it's called where you can clearly hear him say, "If we stay united, not only can we defeat this government, but in the process, we'll roll back the years of Thatcherism." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDvGxNkX4AU 3:20. 81.165.182.64 (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well then that sentence could have read ' Scargill made no secret of his belief that if they stayed united they could win the strike, their confidence would grow and undermine the confidence of the ruling class to impose their will, roll back the Thatcherite 'cure' whose chief effect was to enrich the already disgustingly rich..' Something like that. Still a long way from the twisted 'Scargill made no secret of his intention to topple the government.'Sayerslle (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)