Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Bastin and Yorkshirian

Should Bastin and Yorkshirian be allowed to edit this article without outside supervision?

After all, they've both admitted to being hard core Thatcherites and we don't want this article to turn into a right-wing equivilent of the Lenin article, i.e. a whitewash. That's a big problem with Wikipedia - both right and left wingers coaless around their favourite articles and turn them into whitewashes that minimise the negative issues surrounding their subjects. Paul Austin (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Point out the policy that suggests that your personal attacks or your proposed action are justified, and I'll think about it. Until then, I'm sure that thinking about you is undeserved on either of our parts. Bastin 11:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that reply by Bastin rather proves the validity of what Austin says above. Bastin clearly has an agenda whilst Austin points out an ideal - that is both sides of the argument. I agree that Wikipedia has too much of the "Hitler was quite a nice chap" mentality, to be be crictical (if widely held) is not wrong, if it happens to be true. Personally I think Bastin's reply above is rather sinister - as well as pompous.

Yeah, Thatcher - our longest serving PM in 180 years, our first female PM, the only non-royal in fifty years that anyone is considering giving a state funeral to - was Hitler; I get YOUR agenda. Oh, no; after 20,000 edits of Wikipedia, I'm so respectful of the rules that you think I'm pompous. As an anonymous user, if you think asking for a citation of policy is sinister, you really don't want to join Wikipedia.

Policy is very clear about this; Wikipedia reflects the balance of statements verified by reliable sources. It does not attempt to argue 'both sides' of everything. To use your inappropriate analogy, it does dedicate half the Adolf Hitler article to defending the Holocaust as a great project to purify and redeem the Aryan nation. Why? Not because you find it offensive (although it no doubt is), but because no reliable sources, and very few sources at all, argue it. Or, to use the Thatcher example, I could make the whole article a collection of statements about her being the first world leader to recognise anthropogenic climate change (which she was). That would help my supposed agenda to make her look cuddly, right? Except very few overviews of her life mention it except in passing, and it dropped out of the news quickly after the event. So it gets a single mention in the article, which is about in proportion to the coverage in the literature.

The balance of opinions in reliable sources are quite 'positive' about Thatcher (in the sense that they exonerate her of the absurd charges that leftists lay at her door about her leaving the economy worse off). See the Britannica or Encarta articles for examples of the tone to be used. Bastin 11:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In effect everybody edits with outside supervision. I think so long as the neutrality disputed tag remains its o.k. The revision history statistics show that the 3 most prolific editors of the article are all pro-Thatcher. I dont think its just a problem for Wikipedia. I like what I heard Dionne Warwick say in an interview once, 'Believe half of what you see, and nothing of what you hear.' Sayerslle (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the dispute tags do not absolve absurd edits. The most 'prolific' recent editor has been you, adding snippets of completely irrelevant information from the one book you've read on the subject. The details that you are adding would not be given such prominence in, for example, a longer version of Britannica; you are giving them Wikipedia:Undue weight, and that is in contradiction of the policy on neutrality. As is using non-notable quotations from non-notable authors just because you like their POV. Bastin 11:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is Beckett a non-notable author? I'm quoting from a book published this year in Faber, a major publisher, on the politics of the 1970s in Britain - you just repeating non-notable doesn't make it so. Is Claire Berlinski a notable author? Or is she o.k because you happen to like her pov. And don't bother explaining to me if she isn't and belongs to a different branch of neo-con, neo-liberal I mean, whatever, economics , the fact is you've left her inclusion uncontested.Sayerslle (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Beckett doesn't have a Wikipedia article and wouldn't have one. Hence non-notability. Authors have to meet somewhat more stringent notability guidelines than publishing a book with a major publisher ( btw, Faber & Faber is not; it is a tiny independent publisher with something like 1% market share). Far more importantly, the quotes you keep adding are NOT attributed, as they are required to be by our manual of style. That is, you are quoting as if it is fact, not a statement of Beckett's opinion. Of course, if you did attribute it, you'd find that you're giving undue weight to Beckett's opinion, because no other source has cited his opinion. If you found that citation of Beckett was a common occurrence in accounts of Thatcher's life (in the way that, say, Robert Caro is routinely quoted in works about Lyndon B. Johnson), then you would have a case to use attributed quotes from him. However, his opinion is not regularly cited by similarly reliable sources (the subject of the book isn't even Thatcher!), and you aren't attributing it. Hence, their inclusion runs very much counter to policy. And, umm... I didn't add the parts about Berlinski, nor did I say I didn't have a problem with them. I have problems with much of this article. 17:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Faber published T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Lawrence Durrell..etc..this makes them a major, respected publisher. You're such philistines you Thatcherites. I'm kidding, thats not a personal attack. I've finished the Beckett book, you'll be glad to hear. If you have major problems with the article too, why dont you try and improve it, - without letting your pov destroy your edits - its not easy really. Sayerslle (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thatcher as only Prime Minister of the 20th Century to serve three terms

In fact, Stanley Baldwin also served three times as Prime Minister, though not full terms. Maybe the statement under the heading "1987 Election" should be amended to read "three full terms"?86.178.11.88 (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thatcher also didn't serve three full terms, because the Parliament extended to 1992. She was the only one to serve for longer than a decade. Although that does open the question as to whether to count Blair and Salisbury, who didn't serve their decade entirely in the 20th century. Hmm. Bastin 21:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Three consecutive terms.--Willski72 (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "term" for a prime minister. Unlike, say, US presidents (whose terms of office are prescribed), prime ministers may serve as short or as long as they or Parliament wish. Mooretwin (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Served during two Parliaments & part of a third Parliament. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be more accurate. Or served for two full parliaments and part of a third. Mooretwin (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's how we do it with Canadian PMs. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like the way forward. Mooretwin (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to say that she won three consecutive General elections? Jack forbes (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably more precise to say that she led the Conservative party to three consecutive General election victories. Jack forbes (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be more accurate (though no need for a capital "G"). Mooretwin (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

poll tax

why is there no mention of the controversy caused by the introduction of the tax to Scotland first either here or on the poll tax page or the fact that to this day many scots will still not vote conservative because of the fact it was introduced here first this is a well known fact up here 78.144.113.244 (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thatcher refused to protect Iran Jews in 1979 revolution, files say

This Israeli site: [Haaretz] shows that Thatcher refused to protect Iranian Jews in 1979 Islamic Revolution. Agre22 (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Looks to me like she just decided not to interfere in another countries problems. Why didnt Carter do something about it? I mean if she had interfered and an international crisis possibly leading to war had occured she would have most definately been blamed for that.--Willski72 (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Haaretz picks up on the Jewish point for sectional interests, but it receives no coverage elsewhere. It may be worth noting her belief that a generally hard line against Iran, as advocated by Carter, would be counterproductive (which is the line that the American outlets - Washington Post, CBS, Forbes, MSNBC - are running). However, this incident has received no coverage in the British press, reflecting how relatively unimportant it is to Thatcher's overall profile. Bastin 14:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

General Neutrality

I'm amazed that there are Thatcher-ites still looking for more change. This is not a site to defend people. It's to state fact. If 50% of the population love a leader. And 50% of the country hate them. You have to discuss both aspects.

When you have a controversial, at times very unpopular leadership (with the electorate and your own party) this has to be well documented.

This to me, considering how controversial she actually was, is probably not going far enough. I can only assume (reading how negative the Tony Blair article is - a leader who was incredibely popular and succesful for 80% of his 3 terms) that there are more Tory editors on here than Labour!

The only thing that will suffer from this sort of party political battling is the actual site. When you read 30'000 editors leaving every 3 months (in truth no one bothers editing pages any more because they realize that most of them are controlled by an agenda driven cliq who delete any edits that offend their POV) and Wikipedia having to deny the site is "dying" every 6 months, I thought people would respect the need for accuracy, over your own personal pride.

Thatcher was probably hated as much as she was loved - by her own party and the electorate. It's just fact. If you want to be in the world of protecting someone's legacy, start editing newspaper articles

Cjmooney9 (talk)

If your point is that we should not have a general POV tag on the article then I agree with you and will therefore remove it. If there are particular POV issues remaining then they should be tagged specifically and/or detailed here. A vague tag without a specific, actionable discussion will not do as there is no way we can resolve an uncertain issue. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

At present, the article reads like a hagiography. It completely fails to document the extent to which Thatcher was a polarising politician during her governments. It's certainly true that some Tory supporters loved her personally and felt she was the greatest PM of her century, but many people loathed her with a passion, and still do. The current status of Sarah Palin in the US is an interesting parallel. The article shouldn't suggest that Thatcher was wonderful, evil, visionary, bigoted, principled, ignorant etc. but should document these varied opinions which still resonate in British politics today. --Ef80 (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The entire tone of the entry is snarky and nit-picky. Every tiny little detail that might possibly reflect on Margaret Thatcher is included. She only got a scholarship when the leading contender died. Her twins were delivered whilst her husband was watching the cricket. And so on and so on. How sad the lives of some people if they feel that they must include such pathetic little pokes. If you aren't competent to address the very real controversies of her career, and instead feel obliged to chip away at the subject article in petty ways just inside the rules, then please don't. This is addressed to all political views - I see the same sort of nibbling going on in bios of all controversial public figures, regardless of political orientation. Surely we are writing a useful encyclopaedia rather than performing the online equivalent of cutting each other off in traffic and point-scoring on the letters page of the local paper? --Pete (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Tag restored

It is hardly rocket science that when a tag is dated August 2009 to look in the archives when there are no discussions from August 2009 on the talk page is it? Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 15#Hang on, Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 15#Unresolved Issues, Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 13#Addressing some of the issues in the article and the talk page discussions and Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 12#Ridiculously biased article fully justify the tag remaining until the article meets WP:NPOV. 2 lines of K₃₀₃

This is the most poltically biased entry I have read in Wikipedia in five years of avid reading and support. Hagiography doesn't begin to describe it. Support for environmental issues? No mention that she was the most enthusiastic promoter of private car ownership in British poltical history? 195.27.15.83 (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC) chris hodgson

Place naming policy

There is a very clear policy on UK place names at WP:UKPLACE It states:

• In England, disambiguated place names should go under placename, ceremonial county. Where this is inappropriate placename, Town/City
• In Wales, disambiguated place names should go under placename, principal area. Thus Queensferry, Flintshire, not Queensferry, Wales
• Where possible, articles on places in Scotland should go under placename. Thus Glasgow, not Glasgow, Scotland. Where the settlement is significant and disambiguation is needed, articles should generally go under placename, Scotland. Thus Perth, Scotland, not Perth, Perth and Kinross.

I was made aware of this towards the end of a debate on one page and it seemed to me to settle the issue so I tidied up the modern UK Prime Ministers to conform with it. I'm nor really surprised that Irvine22 went on a revert spree, he has a pattern of disruptive editing (see here and a recording of picking up a minor theme and running it over many pages (for example labeling any Irishperson born in England as English, even a Provisional IRA commander). More recently he has move this campaign to the Welsh from the Irish including edit warring on my own article on Wikipedia. His pattern of editing is to push to the limits of tolerance with the community, then back off with either an enforced or a voluntary withdrawal from editing for a period before he returns to start all over again.

I will also post a notice at the talk page of WP:UKPLACE but pending a change of policy agreed by the community at that location Irvine22's recent edits should be reverted. --Snowded ^TALK 07:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

SA poll by MORI

I've made a very minor edit to the piece on Thatcher and South Africa. You refer to the MORI poll on the subject. A few words appear to have been added to try and spin the poll, and I found it very misleading, and inccurate.

As I said, it's very minor. But it starts by stating Thatcher's position on Sanctions were overwhelmingly unpopular in this poll. With 63% of the country basically not liking it.

It then read "However, just 49% of the country felt that a boycott of trade was fair" (paraphrasing a bit). The words "However, just" are very misleading. And have been added to spin the poll in my opinion.

You need to read the actual poll. A poll that was a huge boost to Labour at the time "just" 49% was actually the majority answer to the given question. By a heck of a long way.

Poll questions generally have 5 answers. If one of them has 49%, it's normally 2-3 times more popular than every other answer.

49% in this poll, and any poll, will always be the vast consensus. And it was.

So adding "however, just" is a bit of a spin. Trying to imply that it wasn't the consensus answer, when it was.

It's previous form insults the intelligence of anyone who knows polling. 49% in any poll is a huge consensus answer.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense Statement

This statement:

"The "productivity miracle" observed in British industry under Thatcher was achieved not so much by increasing the overall productivity of labour as by reducing workforces and increasing unemployment.[93]"

Is economic nonsense. 188.177.18.125 (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

- No it's not - AND it's referenced. guyfwoodward 10:25, 12 March 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyfwoodward (talk • contribs)

Well, it is economic nonsense, because aggregate output went up relative to competitors: proof that productivity must have gone up relative to competitors regardless of changes in unemployment. I don't think that Andrew Glyn is a particularly reliable source by himself; it requires more references to the same effect. If no other sources are produced, it should be attributed as an opinion to Andrew Glyn. Bastin 00:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid - whether referenced or no - this statement is nonsensical, or anyway tautological. Productivity is a measure of relative output for any given unit. Productivity growth is therefore associated either with expanding demand or else with supply-side efficiencies, which can include laying off workers. The idea generally is that the business becomes more efficient, prices go down, profits go up and those who become unemployed redirect their efforts in a way that is more efficient. It is therefore not a contradiction to argue that productivity grew while the workforce shrank, particularly since so much of the British workforce by the end of the 1970's suffered from extremely low productivity relative to the rest of the industrial world. At the very least, the above statement should be rephrased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.80.119 (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Consistently US themed images

I think this article has a huge issue regarding the number of images that appear to be centred on her relationship with Ronald Reagan. I count 8 out of the 14 images are US centric.

While I certainly agree that this was a stand out era in Anglo-American relations, Thatcher was a British PM and the images when looking at this article should reflect this.

I recommend an image from the 1979 election campaign, one from a party conference, a Falklands centric image and perhaps one from the Brighton Hotel Bombing. I think the image of the Thatcher/Reagan cabinets meeting is the best of the American crop but that should be it. One more to do with Reagan tops. Ajplmr (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is finding appropriately licensed images. Official UK photographs will probably be Crown Copyright, and media photos obviously have their own copyright issues. This is why there's a preponderance of US images - official works of US federal employees are public domain, so we can freely use the images. David Underdown (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

A Small Addition?

I would like to recommend that "(née Roberts)" is added at the top of the page beside Mrs. Thatcher's name. Applemacman301 (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Various Nicknames

(This could be a new section or could be added to the rest).

As well as the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher's other nicknames-War Witch/Cold War Witch (named by the Soviet authorities) , Blessed Margaret (by her husband) as well as "The Boss" ), the Leaderene (originally called this by Norman St John Stevas, later picked up by Private Eye) , the Milk Snatcher (called this in 1971 when she ended free school milk for under 7s) , Attilla the Hen (dubbed this by Clement Freud) and TINA (standing for There Is No Alternative-in other words free capitalism is the only answer) . 78.149.154.255 (talk) 07:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

TINA "There Is No Alternative" was also how many people saw the 1983 landslide election. With Labour's "Longest suicide note in history" it was Maggie or bust to many people.--Willski72 (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

She was apparently given the nickname by Norman St John-Stevas, Baron St John of Fawsley a tory wet but the nickname was not used much or particularly notable or as I know used much. Off2riorob (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have made a number of edits to the article to bring it to a neutral article status, I hope other readers of the article will review the current article and edit further to gain neutrality of the article in line with wikipedia guides. I am sure we British have a lot of different opinions of this lady, however the article needs to be just facts based on reliable sources, the press coverage in the period cannot be considered a reliable neatral source here. "Rovington (talk) 03:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)"

Update needed

She is now one of four women to hold the one of the great offices of state —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.70.153.210 (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

True, Theresa May is Home Secretary in the new government.--Willski72 (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. Theresa May is Home Secretary in the new Cameron-Clegg Government. Jacqui Smith was Home Secretary under Gordon Brown and Margaret Beckett was Foreign Secretary under Tony Blair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyx41 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Supposed Death

Indy Media [1] are reporting she has died. Can someone else confirm this, as I don't trust IndyMedia as a source. NickThePhotographer (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That looks unlikely; not only has the page been put on hold by its own website, but the writing style leaves something to be desired considering the professional level of the supposed author. Combined with the fact that the supposed author hasn't Tweeted the same info, and is in any case working in the USA at the moment... probably a falsely attributed hoax. – Kieran T ^(talk) 22:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

BBC and Sky News don't have it, I'm going to assume it's a hoax but I'll check in the morning anyway to be sure NickThePhotographer (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not a hoax but a misunderstanding. In fact, it was the Transport Minister's cat (named Thatcher) that has died. This is how confusion arose [2].

That link about the cat is very outdated. Again, I'll check it in the morning again. Also, please sign your edits with 4 ~'s after you're finished, it makes it easier to see who contributed what to the page NickThePhotographer (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Photos

Why does almost every photo here show her meeting with American politicians, mainly the Reagans, or going to Ronald Reagan's funeral etc.? She did a lot more than socializing with the US political establishment. The choice of pictures just seems a bit strange and misleading to me. Oel43 (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It is true there are too many US related pictures. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As has been pointed out repeatedly in the past, this is largely a function of the fact that official works by employees of the US Federal Government are automatically placed in the public domain, so we can freely use them, whereas equivalents produced by British civil servants will generally be under Crown Copyright, so not freely usable. David Underdown (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

2001 general election

She wouldn't have endorsed Iain Duncan-Smith because he wasn't yet leader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.158.202 (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Legacy

It states that under Thatcher 'egalitarianism dwindled'. This is a biased statement. Figures of donations to charities increased suggesting it increased, but regardless the statement is unproveable one way or the other and should be removed.

The legacy section remains unbalanced. Thatcher is a controversial figure but there is merely two (seperated) lines of positive comments versus ten or more lines of negative comments. I think that this section would benefit from being completely rewritten and restructured. In addition, the large negative quotes should be balanced with a positive quote of similar length or impact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James.cork (talk • contribs) 10:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

>This is a biased statement. Nonsense. It's quantifiably true - you can compare the income gap between the richest and the poorest in a society, then determine the extent to which a society can be called egalitarian from that. In the Thatcher era, the wealth-gap widened. Charity is not typically associated with egalitarian societies - America, for instance, is very generous to charity, but is one of the least egalitarian first world states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.130.70 (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to include material about "the income gap between the richest and the poorest in a society", along with appropriate citation, then do so. But I agree that "egalitarianism dwindled" is a weasel phrase and heavily POV, ambiguous and unquantifiable. --AladdinSE (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Andy Beckett - When the Lights Went Out

I find this quote in the "Legacy" section rather hard to fathom:

Social mobility, the likelihood of someone becoming part of a different class from their parents, peaked in the Callaghan era. The egalitarian Britain of the Callaghan years and its social trends were relentlessly reversed in the Thatcher years and beyond, so that Britain in the 1970s was probably more equal than it had ever been before, and certainly more than it has ever been since."[226]

There are lies, damn lies and statistics, but I think that more should be explained about the Gini coefficient, the fact that Andy Beckett's opinions are being expressed, and that they are controversial. I have read "When The Lights Went Out" and found the book to be rather inaccurate in places - and certainly designed to make the 1970s to be rather more wonderful than the reality.

The Wikipedia article on the Gini coefficient states:

While the Gini coefficient measures inequality of income, it does not measure inequality of opportunity. For example, the United Kingdom has a social class structure that may present barriers to upward mobility; this is not reflected in its Gini coefficient.

(Solidsandie (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC))

That is true, although if there is a consensus amongst reliable sources that social mobility declined, it has to be included. However, I don't think that's the case. The 'aspirational working class' of the Essex man was famously the great vanguard of Thatcherism. There is no convenient, universally-accepted measure for intergenerational mobility, as there is for income inequality, so it's hard to quantify. Income inequality grew, but inequality relative to one's parents shrank between the 1958 and 1970 birth cohorts. As such, there is a debate, rather than the clear statement that Beckett makes and that this article parrots.

The article's dependence on Andy Beckett in some parts is worrying evidence of a single editor's bias in the matter. All opinions that use words such as 'relentlessly', should be put in inverted commas, and included only actually when the author's opinion is itself notable. Andy Beckett is not a notable author, and thus his emotive vocabulary should be excluded. Bastin 14:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There have certainly been a number of studies reported by newspapers showing that social mobility has declined since the 70s - even in things such as those from the poorest backgrounds going on to tertiary education there has been little change, despite the vast increase in the proportion of those going to university in general. And while "Essex man" may have done well, there is perhaps a rather different story in the former industrial heartlands of the north and the mdilands. David Underdown (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that people living in the north of England don't belong to a higher socio-economic group than their parents? I would have thought that to be a relatively uncontroversial statement, given that the north has a lower percentage of manual workers than before, and has experienced a larger jump in enrolment in tertiary education than the south. Bastin 14:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't rememebr the reports clearly enough - it would need a bit of dedicated hunting to track them down, which I don't have time for at the moment. But I don't think the points Beckett makes can necessarily be dismissed out of hand. David Underdown (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)