Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 28

Edit request, 9 November 2013

"After the two-year negotiations, Thatcher made concession to the PRC government and signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration in Beijing in December 1984, handing over Hong Kong's sovereignty in 1997.[citation needed]"

Please remove that, pending reference. Thanks. 88.104.18.246 (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: in your last request, you asked that it be either removed or tagged as unreferenced. The {{citation needed}} tag does the latter. We normally allow time for references to be provided before we delete things. --Stfg (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It's now cited anyway. Eric Corbett 17:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Privatization

Please remove this;

"The privatisation of public assets was combined with financial deregulation in an attempt to fuel economic growth. Geoffrey Howe abolished Britain's exchange controls in 1979, allowing more capital to be invested in foreign markets, and the Big Bang of 1986 removed many restrictions on the London Stock Exchange. The Thatcher government encouraged growth in the finance and service sectors to compensate for Britain's ailing manufacturing industry.[citation needed]"

-unreferenced.

88.104.18.246 (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: for the same reason as the previous one. --Stfg (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This unreferenced claim has been in the article since 2009 [1]; how long do you think is 'reasonable' to supply a ref? I'm pretty sure that 4 years is enough time! 88.104.18.246 (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: That may be true, but the tag has only been present since yesterday, as you well know, since it was added at your request. Celestra (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thatcherism

"the term "Thatcherism" came to refer to her policies as well as aspects of her ethical outlook and personal style, including moral absolutism, nationalism, interest in the individual, and an uncompromising approach to achieving political goals.[nb 4]"

There's no reference here, just a footnote; I'd like to see something backing this up.

please either remove or tag it for a citation.

88.104.18.246 (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Search for this sentence and you'll find that it is lifted verbatim from "Rupert Murdoch: The Politico Media Complex Mogul" by Heinz Duthel p. 168, 2011 (e.g. on Google books)--TraceyR (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That sentence has been in the article since before 2011, so I don't think it is from that book. A 2010 version of the article sources it to the Encyclopedia Britanica and shows a 2008 retrieval date. I'll research further and restore that citation. Celestra (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The sentence was added by User:Happyme22 on October 30, 2008. I've restored the citation. Regards, Celestra (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio

-direct copy from book source, "were then adapted into a West End stage revue as Anyone for Denis?, starring Wells as Denis Thatcher. The stage show was followed"

[2]

88.104.18.246 (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Why we don't just delete this article, and then you can write the one you'd like to see? Eric Corbett 22:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Done That isn't a very long section of text and it may simply be worded the same way. I have altered the text so that it is clearly not a copy. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

References?

The following appear to be unreferenced;

• "The privatisation of public assets was combined with financial deregulation in an attempt to fuel economic growth. Geoffrey Howe abolished Britain's exchange controls in 1979, allowing more capital to be invested in foreign markets, and the Big Bang of 1986 removed many restrictions on the London Stock Exchange. The Thatcher government encouraged growth in the finance and service sectors to compensate for Britain's ailing manufacturing industry."

• "After the two-year negotiations, Thatcher made concession to the PRC government and signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration in Beijing in December 1984, handing over Hong Kong's sovereignty in 1997."

• "Thatcher's government provided military forces to the international coalition in the build-up to the Gulf War, but she had resigned by the time hostilities began on 17 January 1991."

• "In March 2002, Thatcher's book Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World, dedicated to Ronald Reagan, was released. In it, she claimed there would be no peace in the Middle East until Saddam Hussein was toppled, that Israel must trade land for peace, and that the European Union (EU) was "fundamentally unreformable", "a classic utopian project, a monument to the vanity of intellectuals, a programme whose inevitable destiny is failure". She argued that Britain should renegotiate its terms of membership or else leave the EU and join the North American Free Trade Area. The book was serialised in The Times on 18 March."

Please either remove those unreferenced claims, or at least tag them as unreferenced for later removal.

88.104.20.198 (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Y I've added {{Citation needed}} tags to all these statements. --Stfg (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

@Eric Corbett: I've restored the {{citation needed}} on the one in the 3rd bullet. What needs citing is the whole sentence: the statement that her government provided forces during the build-up, and that her resignation preceded the start of hostilities. --Stfg (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish. That her resignation preceded the start of hostilities ought to be obvious even to you. Eric Corbett 14:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

@Eric Corbett: How sweet! Actually it is obvious to me, because I know when hositilities started, but not everyone does, and the edit requester asked for that sentence to be referenced. And the fact that her government provided military forces to the international coalition in the build-up also needs citation for those who don't know it already. Now stop behaving like a supercilious jerk and address the issue. --Stfg (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I have addressed the issue, by once again removing your stupid tag. Eric Corbett 15:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

For what it is worth: I started to service this request yesterday and had planned to ask the requester to explain the reason for #3. The resignation date is available elsewhere in the article and the date of hostilities is in the sentence, so the second half of the sentence is unremarkable and I'd agree with Eric. If the requester meant the first part, that the troops were sent during the build-up or that Thatcher's government sent them, then it may not be as obvious and a citation might be reasonable, so I think it was reasonable for Stfg to have simply added the template. The {{citation needed}} template has a 'reason' field to avoid just this sort of confusion and it seems reasonable for the requester to provide that. Just my two cents. Celestra (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Re #3 - yes, you're correct. 88.104.18.246 (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a yes or no question, actually. What is your concern about the sentence? A reasonable editor might replace the tag with a reference which confirms the date of hostilities. To avoid that, you need to supply a reason for the {{citation needed}} template. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Legacy

There is no mention of the demonstrations on her demise ("Ding dong" etc). Is this not notable in showing an enduring aspect of her legacy? --TraceyR (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to do with legacy, but see the Death section, where it is mentioned. Eric Corbett 14:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The legacy aspect shows in the "deep divisions" mentioned in the cited source. Have there been other British politicians whose death invoked the "vitriol" mentioned in the source? --TraceyR (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

What has that to do with legacy? Eric Corbett 19:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

A legacy does not have to be positive. Leaving a society deeply divided so many years after resigning from office is also part of her legacy.--TraceyR (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Find a decent source and we can see if it's worth putting into the article. --John (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Improving the article to near FA-quality

This article is well-sourced, well-detailed, and well-written. Why is this article not a Featured Article Candidate? --George Ho (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Economic Policy

The explanation of Thatcher's economic policy regarding tax levels of all kinds, government spending, deficit spending, and the battle against the '364' economists is unclear and does not allow the reader to draw conclusions on their own. The goal here should be to present the facts, and then allow the reader to draw their own conclusions on different economic policies. For instance, this article implies that the 364 economists wrote Thatcher, arguing that she should not raise taxes during the recession of the early 1980's. This is a poor explanation of the letter they wrote, and I am including a source of a more detailed explanation of the letter. What the economists wrote, and where they disagreed with Thatcher, was in their economic school of thought. Similar to today's austerity vs fiscal stimulus debates. The economists were mostly Keynesians, who wanted more deficit spending. Thatcher disagreed. Below is a link to a good explanation of the situation.

http://www.cato.org/blog/margaret-thatcher-battle-364-keynesians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.165.252 (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia should, as you say, "present the facts, and then allow the reader to draw their own conclusions on different economic policies", but I'm not sure there is the space or the need for it in this article. Premiership_of_Margaret_Thatcher#Deflationary_strategy, perhaps? Mr Stephen (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@74.196.165.252. Your source is a rather poor quality opinion piece from an organisation with its own agenda. Eric Corbett 18:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Other people?

Does this high-traffic GA need a {{otherpeople}} tag, in case it was Margaret Thatcher (disambiguation), (which only leads to Margaret Thatcher (Due South)) you were really after? I would think no; what do others think? --John (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Death reaction.

"Reactions to the news of Thatcher's death were mixed, ranging from tributes lauding her as Britain's greatest-ever peacetime Prime Minister to public celebrations of her death and expressions of personalised vitriol" - This statement is hardly neutral, making it seem as if everyone who praised her did so on the basis of her "good-points" from a political sense, and that there were no people on the opposing side constructively criticizing her but rather being hateful and celebrating her death without any intellectual reasoning. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you cite come examples of the constructive criticism. I don't remember there being much of it about.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that is what the "ranging from" language was trying to cover. If you have a suggestion for better wording, please suggest it here. --John (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2014

Request that the title "21st Chancellor of the College of William and Mary" be added into summary box. Margaret Thatcher held this office from 1993-2000, as described in the Wikipedia article "Chancellor of the College of William & Mary," and listed on the University webpage at "http://www.wm.edu/about/administration/chancellor/postcolonial/index.php" 66.255.30.2 (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Done Looks like someone else did this Cannolis (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed this as I felt it cluttered the infobox. --John (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Cultural depictions

A couple of editors have enacted drive-by removals of large parts of this section on the grounds that it relates to Thatcher's husband. I seem to remember that during the GA review we agreed that these were apposite here. If anyone disagrees it would be great if they could raise it here with their reasoning rather than just removing it. --John (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Music

The British Heavy Metal Band Kaine released the song "Iron Lady" about her exactly a year after her death.http://kainemetaluk.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/kaine-album-art-first-single-and-album-name-released/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.195.144 (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating. Eric Corbett 19:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Also known as the Iron Lady

She should have her epithet better represented, like Richard the Lionheart for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oisinwilson (talk • contribs) 19:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

What would you suggest? Something like Margaret the Iron Lady? Eric Corbett 19:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Reversing her early casual anti-Semitism

When did this get added and where was it discussed? Meantime I have taken it out.

Reversing her early casual anti-Semitism, Thatcher came to admire the values she saw in Finchley's Jewish residents, viewed them as "her people" and "good citizens", and became a founding member of the Anglo-Israel Friendship League of Finchley as well as a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel. She also believed Israel had to trade land for peace, and condemned Israel's 1981 bombing of Osirak as "a grave breach of international law".

--John (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The anti-semitism part was added ca 12 June 2013 by user Ylee, referenced to a review by David Runciman of Moore's biography. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Picture

Would the section on Thatchers death and funeral not be better served and look better with an image such as this? Tomh903 (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher's coffin being carried up the steps of St. Pauls Cathedral

That image is used in the main Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher article; there isn't really room for it here. Eric Corbett 18:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Weird article to not mention any of her opponents in the General Elections

Unless I missed it? Seems important to history to mention who her opponents were. Not that I care really, but seems a bit limited article because of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.50.134 (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2014

Someone appears to have vandalized parts of this page. Two sentences in the opening: Originally a research chemist before becoming a professional baby killer, Thatcher was elected Member of Parliament (MP) for Finchley in 1959. and the last line before the table of contents Thatcher was a known proponent of reunifying Ireland, and would have suceceeded if it weren't for those troublesome trotskyists. She was also known for marrying David Hasselhoff, after he teared down the Berlin Wall with his bare hands. Please check the remainder of the article for any further issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahnceavaron (talk • contribs) 04:28, 29 May 2014‎

Already fixed, but thanks for pointing it out. Bencherlite^Talk 06:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

As neo-liberal proponent

I think the article should mention, at least in passing, her support for neoliberal policies (deregulation, privatisation, etc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 02:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Coat of arms date

The article says her arms were adopted in 1992, but they feature the circlet of the Order of the Garter, in which it says she was only appointed in 1995. Did her arms not include the circlet for their first three years? If so, that should be mentioned, because only saying they were adopted in 1992 when they had changed since then is misleading. JulySecond (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Queen and Thatcher.

By non written constitution Queen can not comment government. Queen comments unofficially diplomatically by this words that Thatcher is not the best person in office prime minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.172 (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thatcher's relationship with Rupert Murdoch

There are allegations about her relationship with Murdoch, impacting the press industry in the UK. Obviously, Murdoch had relations with John Major, Tony Blair, and David Cameron. And Murdoch was a rising star at the time of Thatcher's premiership (1980s). Yes, Thatcher's relations with Ronald Reagan was known, but there should be reliable sources proving her relations with Murdoch. Something reliable... --George Ho (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Pics available to add

Following are two nice pics to add - if room is found to avoid overcrowding:

File:Margaret Thatcher - Age 13.jpg

MT At age 13

File:Margaret and Denis Thatcher.JPG

Denis & MT engagement photo

Hoppyh (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thought this was interesting

Though I am not sure it is germane to the article. What do others think? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28801302 --John (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Climate Change

Thatchers contribution was quite strong and her environmental/climate stance has been compared - similar to Merkel btw. - by her science background. I dont agree with erasing the link to hadley and IPCC. Serten (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's the proposed addition if anyone wants to read it:

Thatcher, never a friend of the coal mining industry, had been a strong supporter of an active climate protection policy and was instrumental in founding either the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the British Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter.<ref>[http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/04/thatchers-climate-change-greatest-hits How Margaret Thatcher Made the Conservative Case for Climate Action, James West, [[Mother Jones]], Mon Apr. 8, 2013</ref> After her career Thatcher was less of a climate activists as she doubted climate action a "marvelous excuse for supranational socialism," and called Al Gore an "apocalyptic hyperbole".<ref>[http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/04/08/margaret_thatcher_s_environmental_record_she_was_a_climate_hawk.html An Inconvenient Truth About Margaret Thatcher: She Was a Climate Hawk], Will Oremus, [[Slate (magazine)]] April 8 2013 </ref><ref name=cw/>

I don't like the writing style or the sources. With decent sources I wouldn't be against a brief mention. --John (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the less journalistic ones is the climate wars is the Glovers Energy and Climate Wars, however thats sort of whitewash with reference to her environmental record.

• <ref>http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/apr/09/margaret-thatcher-green-hero Margaret Thatcher, science advice and climate change] Greenwashing Thatcher's history does an injustice both to her and to science and technology policy Alice Bell Tuesday 9 April 2013 The Guardian</ref>
• <ref>Spaces of Sustainability: Geographical Perspectives on the Sustainable Society, Mark Whitehead, Routledge, 24.01.2007 </ref> refers to the groundbreaking role of
• <ref>[http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107346 1988 Sep 27 Tu Margaret Thatcher Speech to the Royal Society and the [[Environmental Protection Act 1990]]</ref>

With regard to wording, feel free to suggest a change. I agree with your deletion of that mini foreign policy stubb, however I think it would be wiorth while to make a split. Serten (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

First mention as possible future prime minister?

You say 'Thatcher's talent and drive caused her to be mentioned as a future Prime Minister in her early 20s', as supported by a quote from the Charles Moore biography. That quote needs a citation of its own. It is hard to imagine any political observer in 1948-9 predicting a female Tory Prime Minister. Valetude (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Honorary degrees

It would be nice to mention her honorary degrees in the Honours section. I don't have a complete list of them, but here are a few to get things started. She received an honorary doctorate of laws at Rand Afrikaans University in 1991 (http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108268), an honorary doctor of philosphy degree from University of Tel Aviv in 1986 (http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106444), and an honorary doctorate of public service from Brigham Young University in 1996 (http://universe.byu.edu/2013/04/08/margaret-thatcher-has-byu-ties/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.60.229.62 (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Flexible labour markets?

I just tried to replace the phrase 'flexible labour markets' in the lede with something a little more meaningful, then immediately realised that I was duplicating, and self-reverted. Perhaps people here know what the phrase means, but I wonder where in the body of the article it is elaborated in a WP:NPOV way, as I can't find it. As stated, it sounds like an admirable aspiration - who would vote for inflexible ones? - but I wonder what it meant to working people at the time in practice. I imagine that a great many people lost their jobs, or were somehow re-employed for much less money. I don't think the phrase adequately summarises their point of view. --Nigelj (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't see the elaboration of 'flexible labour market' in the body of the article, either in a NPOV way or not. The flexibility of labour increased considerably in the 1980s, so that ought to be there. I.e fewer instances of tightening a wood screw requiring a carpenter and tightening a bolt requiring a fitter. And e.g solicitors lost their monopoly on conveyancing. But I don't know what flexibility of the labour market refers to.

Gravuritas (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile

Back in April 2013 there was a very brief discussion about Savile. An editor opined that the friendship had more to do with Savile's manipulation than anything to do with Thatcher.

I would say that was always a debatable POV, but the situation has changed since. Thus in July 2013 a Freedom of Information request by The Sun newspaper demonstrated Thatcher's commitment to knighting Savile, despite advice to the contrary from Sir Robert Armstrong, head of the civil service at the time. The Cabinet office initially refused the FOI request, but the Information Commissioner ruled there was compelling public interest in releasing the relevant files. It seems to me that likewise there is similarly a compelling public interest in recording the facts in Wikipdia.

Moreover, within the last few hours as I write, the notable broadcasting personality Noel Edmonds has suggested that the Royal family and Margaret Thatcher was as much to blame for the Savile scandal as the BBC.

I think it plain that some mention of these reports should be made in the article. Presently I can't edit at the article because it's protected and I'm awaiting confirmation of my account. But I would be pleased to see editors here making the necessary edits, and if not I shall eventually edit myself. Sock of ages past (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

How long do we have to wait? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I gather it takes four days and ten edits to get your account confirmed, though I'm not planning on making any edits in the immediate future. I'll be editing on politics and current affairs, but I don't have anything in mind at the moment, so if you or any other editors would like to make the relevant edits that's fine by me. I do think there should be some mention, I suppose as a new sub-section of "Legacy". Sock of ages past (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you could manage 2 and a half edits a day? I'd be surprised if other editors would think a whole new sub-section justified just for this addition. Are Edmonds remarks being considered at Jimmy Savile? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Savile was awarded an OBE in 1971. Clearly Ted Heath was in on it too. Personally, my opinion of Edmonds tends towards that of Smith and Jones' characters, but I doubt he will be bothered by that. I think the current coverage is about right. I will check the indexes of a couple of biographies, but I don't remember Savile having a big part in her life. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Tend to agree this is more relevant to Savile than to Thatcher. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a litle in Charles Moore's biography. His conclusion is Mrs Thatcher, like so many others, took Savile at face value. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Happy to include that. Can you give a page ref? Thanks. Sock of ages past (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think The Sun FOI request and subsequent revelations make it notable. I imagine readers turning to Wikipedia for encylopaedic commentary and disappointed to find nothing. Off the top of my head (and without researching how many consectutive Christmas/New Years Savile actually spent as Chequers, I suggest something similar to this with appropriate wikilinking and citation :

In the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal, newspaper reported that Savile had been invited to Chequers on numerous occasions as a guest of the Thatcher family. Aides declined to comment, but commentators observed that it would not be unusual for a British prime minister to champion a noted charity worker in this way. Charles Moore, Thatcher's official biographer, commented that Thatcher, like so many others, simply took Savile at face value. It subsequently transpired that Thatcher had repeatedly tried to get a knighthood for Savile, against the advice of the then head of the Civil Service who countenanced caution regarding Savile's "complex personality". In the event, Savile was only knighted after Thatcher left office.

Something like that. But I'm not very invested here and I'm not prepared to make a series of pseudo-edits simply to get confirmed and overcome the protection here, verging on abuse I think. I am planning an article start for the recent ECJ benefits tourism judgment Elisabeta Dano, Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig, and if after that I don't see an edit at the article I shall make a WP:BOLD edit along the lines I suggest above. At the same time I'll note Edmonds' comments at the Jimmy Savile article. Really the scandal should have an article of its own (perhaps it has, haven't checked). Sock of ages past (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You mean Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, though that article doesn't go into detail about his relationship with Thatcher. Perhaps, see also Independent Panel Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks for that. As I say I simply hadn't looked for it. Sock of ages past (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Utterly disagree about Edmonds remarks. They were both prominent BBC DJs at the same time, and given the scale of Savile's activities it is difficult to believe that all of Savile's and Edmonds's colleagues knew nothing. For Edmonds to come up and say that it was everybody else's fault just as much as the BBC's (and by implication, everybody else's fault just as much as Savile's BBC colleagues) is special pleading, to put it mildly. Don't turn WP into a garbageopedia. The Sun has marginally more substance but in summary, it seems that Thatcher asked for him to be knighted and was unsuccessful. Not much of a factoid for which to demand room in a WP article that includes the Miners strike, the Falklands and cold wars, Iraq, privatization, council home sales......

Gravuritas (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Edmonds' remarks germane here. Whether he's right or wrong, neither here nor there. I'm in my mid-sixties. If you were able to visit the sex shops of the mid 1970s in Soho, London, before the 1978 Protection of Children Act, at a time when child pornography was openly available and on display, and that despite disquiet raised for some time in national newspapers, you would be forced to conclude I think that there was a significant sense in which British society at large, and not just the BBC nor for that matter the Establishment, was negligent. That was precisely why the 1978 Act was enacted. Your "garbage" remark untoward. Sock of ages past (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but what do you mean exactly by "verging on abuse"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC) p.s. were you unaware of Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal?

1. Close to "gaming the system" in Wikipedia jargon 2. Yes. Sock of ages past (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not. Just a way of encouraging you to edit! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks for that. Misunderstood you. But all the same I'll wait until I've started Dano, so there can be no question of bad faith. Sock of ages past (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

sycophantic nonsense

Where is the NPOV? This article is riddled with so much sycophantic nonsense it is not possible get anything useful out of it. Even the Tory supporting Telegraph describes her as the divisive, and the independent as the most divisive PM the UK ever had. She was completely hated in the North were people cheered when she died. No doubt I will get shouted down by her fans, but the truth cannot rewritten.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/margaret-thatcher-obituary-the-most-divisive-political-leader-of-modern-times-8564559.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9980331/Margaret-Thatcher-yes-she-was-divisive-but-she-needed-to-be.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.117.208 (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the article is extremely well written, and well sourced. Her divisiveness is discussed in two paragraphs in the political legacy section. The article seems extremely neutral and accurate to me. Perhaps you could highlight the sections that you feel are not NPOV and we could work on improving them? Atshal (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Sir Peter Hayman

An interesting news story reported in The Independent, The Guardian, and even the Daily Mail makes the claim that Thatcher suppressed mention of the paedophile activities of Sir Peter Hayman. Given this, it's clear that Thatcher was both aware of these accusations, and, as the document shows, in their suppression from the public sphere. -- Impsswoon (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's have facts not opinion

The following needs to be backed up by evidence:

"Thatcher's popularity during her first years in office waned amid recession and high unemployment until the 1982 Falklands War brought a resurgence of support"

"During this period her support for a Community Charge (referred to as the "poll tax") was widely unpopular"

"her views on the European Community were not shared by others in her Cabinet"

"In the 1979 general election, the Conservatives attracted voters from the National Front" 88.96.4.126 (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Those appear to be quotes taken from the lead, which is a summary of information provided within the article ... they all seem to be correctly referenced in the later text. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

That poll tax idea was really quite popular, wasn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It gets worse. The lead also opens by stating that she was "Prime Minister" and "Leader of the Conservative Party". Can a proper cite be produced for these outlandish claims, or are they just some Wikipedia editor's opinion?MissingMia (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Request

As this article was peer-reviewed, could any further attempts to improve it please be discussed and agreed here first? --John (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Margaret Thatcher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111227183508/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-3708.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-3708.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Lady/Baroness

This says either is acceptable: and this suggests that her preference was Lady Gravuritas (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Her official name was Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher; so as both are acceptable, let's stick with Baroness. Andreas11213 (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Zacwill16, this source suggests that the wife of a Baron is Baroness. Sir Denis Thatcher was not a Baron, Margaret Thatcher was a Baroness in her own right, so Lady is not the correct term. Andreas11213 (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

A baroness in her own right can be styled either Baroness or Lady, though Lady Thatcher preferred the latter. Read the sources Gravuritas provided. Zacwill16 (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither source suggest she preferred the name Lady Thatcher, however one of them says she liked the name Iron Lady, but that is not her official name. She was given life peerage as The Baroness Thatcher so the name she was given life peerage to should be used. Andreas11213 (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Your first sentence is incorrect, so your conclusion fails. In the second source I provided, under the Biography (Conclusion) para, it says "Lady Thatcher, as she became...". It's a fair assumption that the Margaret Thatcher Foundation would use the name that she preferred.

Gravuritas (talk) 09:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No, just because there is one source with one reference to Lady does not mean she preferred it, that is absolute rubbish. If there is not a quote of her specifically saying she preferred it then no other source is acceptable. She was given life peerage as The Baroness Thatcher, not the Lady Thatcher and you don't have a source that provides a specific quote of her saying she prefers Lady Thatcher, so it will stay Baroness. Also, The Lady Thatcher doesn't even make sense. Andreas11213 (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If the Mickey Mouse Foundation referred to him as Michael Mouse instead of Mickey, you could assume that his preference was clear. So it is in this case, in the absence of other sources. I'm quite happy to be contradicted by a source, but not by your unsupported bald assertion. Her title was indeed The Baroness Thatcher, but the box refers to her name, not her title. You've tried to ignore the Debrett's reference to either Lady or Baroness being acceptable, and you're ignoring it again. afaik, Debrett's are experts in this field of trivia. You may well be right about 'The' being inappropriate in front of Lady- if it makes you happy, feel free to get rid of 'The' as far as I'm concerned.

Gravuritas (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

What the foundation says is irrelevant. Her official title - and thus the version that should be used in the infobox - is The Baroness Thatcher. "The Lady" is only used for wives of Barons, NOT for Baronesses in their own right. See the pages for any other British Baroness if you need to be reminded.

Try reading with a bit of precision. The box under discussion is called "name", not "official title", so in fact it's your comment on official title that is irrelevant. If you look at say TB's equivalent entry, he is Tony Blair- because that's what he wanted to be called- not Anthony hoosit wotsit Blair. So her preference is significant, and evidence from the Thatcher Foundation is indeed relevant. Furthermore, on the immensely boring subject of who is referred to as Lady and who isn't, try reading the Debrett's link I gave and, if you wish to take this further, explain why your utterance should carry more weight than Debrett's.

Gravuritas (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The convention on Wikipedia is that peers and peeresses are always given their official peerage title in an officeholder infobox (unless disclaimed). Every other British suo jure Baroness is styled as "The Right Honourable The Baroness Something" if their infobox is of the officeholder type. Robin S. Taylor

I agree that it should be "The Baroness Thatcher" rather than "Lady Thatcher" since the former was her official title (see, for example, the notice in the London Gazette announcing her peerage). Debrett's opinion isn't really relevant in this case since they are dealing with social usage, and social usage isn't necessarily going to be appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. In other words, it is fine to refer to a life baroness as "Lady Doe" on an envelope or in conversation, but an encyclopedia article arguably requires a greater degree of formality. Furthermore, as Robin S. Taylor has pointed out, other Wikipedia articles generally use the style "Baroness Doe" in the officeholder infobox. Sesh84 (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As an addendum to my earlier comment, I should like to point out that the style "Baroness Doe" is used regularly on a day-to-day basis. See, for example, Baroness Stowell of Beeston's page on the Number 10 Downing Street website and Baroness D'Souza's page on Parliament's website.Sesh84 (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• The lead should use the proper title, i.e. "Baroness Thatcher", but I see no problem with using "Lady Thatcher" in the prose as shorthand. This is a common usage, and not at all incorrect. It is no more incorrect than referring to the Baron Strathclyde as Lord Strathclyde. RGloucester — ☎ 21:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm only referring to the info box. I agree that it's okay to refer to her as "Lady Thatcher" within the main body of the article, but I believe the info box should use the proper title (i.e., Baroness Thatcher).Sesh84 (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Robin S. Taylor and Zacwill16 - take fair warning that if either of you make a change without gaining consensus, then you are liable to be indeffed. I would suggest that the best way to settle this issue is to file a WP:RFC over the issue and establish consensus that way. Whichever of you fails to gain consensus for their desired wording will just have to accept the fact and move on. Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

References

The link (Margaret Thatcher Foundation) that Gravuritas provided is probably calling Thatcher Lady Thatcher (notice: not the Lady Thatcher) only because she was wife of a baronet and wasn't a baroness before 1992. The text doesn't say that she preferred to be styled as the Lady Thatcher. In the House of Lords she was referred to as (the) Baroness Thatcher, so I think that we should use that, at least if there are no reliable source that suggests that she preferred the other style. --Editor FIN (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Frit

I would have said that the use of "frit" was deliberate, and Thatcher does not sound especially "stressed" in the debate listen here. Unfortunately I do not have access to either of the citations, which may support the "stress" theory, and may label the "frit" comment as "stressed". Can anyone confirm or deny these hypotheses? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC).

The text is still fairly close to what I wrote here (except I used 'under stress', not 'stressed'). I should be able to get a sight of the sources in the next few days. MHO is that she was trawling her mind for a third term (she liked to speak in threes) and a little bit of Grantham got caught in the net. But, let's look. (Cracking recording BTW from the days when politics was less of a beauty contest.) Mr Stephen (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the sentiments but not the exact wording is there in the given refs. A contemporary article by Michael White in the Guardian has "But the most intriguing development to emerge from question time was Mrs Thatcher's lapse under stress into the dialect of her ancestors in the East Midlands shoemaking and grocery trades. She used the word frit. To be precise, she suggested that Mr Foot might be frit." White, Michael (20 April 1983). "How the frit hit the fan". Grauniad. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I was listening to the original broadcast, and have heard a recording several times since. I have no doubt that her use of the word was deliberate and that she was not in the least stressed. But of course this is merely original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impregnable (talk • contribs) 21:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thatcher removed from prime minister category in favour of head of state

Not sure how Brits feel about this topic, but the term Head of StateHead of government can mean a king or a dictator while prime ministers are always voted into office by the public. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The change relates to Category:Female heads of government, not heads of state. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: Point taken. But heads of government can still be appointed, not elected. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)please png me

She was prime minister and clearly a female head of government, and equally clearly not a headof state. From which category are you saying that she has been removed?

Gravuritas (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Falklands

The introduction is misleading - all the polls showed Thatcher's popularity was already recovering at the beginning of 1982, before Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. (79.67.107.202 (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC))

Could you provide a secondary source for this? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Miners strike

Apparently the strike, the story was that 'pit after pit voted with their feet', 'it spread like wildfire' from Cortonwood , through Yorkshire and Scotland. The text highlights Scargills attitude to a national ballot, but shouldn't the text also reflect the 'voting with their feet' reality that the strike was popular, the need to fight back, was very widely held. The text makes it seem like Scargill was afraid of how unpopular strike action might be amongst miners, but that is surely nonsense. The text is pov right wing in its choice of what it is emphasising at this point. pit after pit voted with their feet. - the strike spread like wildfire - the text should make this clear if it is to reflect the history accurately.92.3.31.188 (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Where are you getting those quotes from? Could you suggest an alternative? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The quotes are from the documentary Still the Enemy Within, -I could suggest an alternative but would like to think about the phrasing a bit. Thank you for responding. 92.3.17.204 (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

"Still the Enemy Within is a unique insight into one of history’s most dramatic events: the 1984-85 British Miners’ Strike. No experts. No politicians. Thirty years on, this is the raw first-hand experience of those who lived through Britain’s longest strike. Follow the highs and lows of that life-changing year." Probably not a RS. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC) PS:here.

If the history related within the documentary bears a strong relation to the facts, RS should be discoverable to back up the evidence of those involved. If its true the strike spread like wildfire, and that 'pits voted with their feet' I'll find RS I expect. 92.3.17.204 (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, John Campbell's biography for one (ISBN 0099516772) tells a different story. I tried to scan the page but it was too close to the fold. I'll have another go when I can get to the scanner. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

92.3.31.188 just to check, are you saying that your book says that the strike was popular with miners or with the public? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The film documentary says it was popular with the miners, - within a week from Scotland to Kent , it had spread - Nottinghamshire was an exception. That is my understanding. As for the public, they are portrayed as split of course. 92.3.17.204 (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

To follow up on Campbell's biography, which, as I said, has a different slant on things. If you go to Amazon UK here, click on 'look inside' and search for McGahey you will see the relevant section (it's around page 364). Mr Stephen (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Animosities

Lady Margeret was quite well known in her times, but younger people and people not familiar with the United Kingdom might not know she was actually a person who triggered deep animosity. Wouldn't it be possible to write some words about that, without forgetting to pay due respect to the deceased? --Ghettogrrl (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It is already in there: "Thatcher has been criticised for being divisive[266] and for promoting greed and selfishness.[262]" from the "Political legacy" section. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Styles of address

I have challenged the addition of a "Styles of address" section by User:Sdrqaz, I cant see it adding any value to the article, her honours and stuff already detailed so I am not convinced that this is encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• I agree. This adds nothing. --John (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Sdrqaz: - I agree with MilborneOne and John. At best it adds nothing, at worst, it detracts from the article. Thatcher was not Royalty, just a milk snatcher. Mjroots (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with all three of you (MilborneOne John Mjroots). Just because The Baroness Thatcher wasn't a royal doesn't mean that she should receive her own section about her styles of address. If this was the case, plenty of peers (Lord Martin, Lord Templewood, Lord Coe etc) would not have a 'styles of address' section. I don't see how this is not encyclopaedic. I feel that it is comprehensive. In terms of adding value to the article, it does because the practice of putting the year first without the month and day is the norm in most articles about styles of address. I don't see how it detracts from the article. The edit does not contradict anything in the article, and it's not as if it is glaringly obvious. Furthermore, any personal belief that Thatcher is a 'milk snatcher' has nothing to do with whether or not she has a 'styles of address' section. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a personal belief, but a fact. Thatcher snatched my milk! Mjroots (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Sdrqaz; in my case it is not a matter of personal belief (I don't think it is for Mjroots either, I think he is joking with you). I was one of the editors who helped raise this article to GA status and one of the problems was people wanting to put their pet bits and pieces onto it. I see this proposal as another well-intentioned piece of trivia that may be interesting to some but does not add to the value of this article. No offence intended. --John (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

John, no offence taken. However, may I suggest a compromise? I have noticed that Margaret Thatcher's page still has a section about her styles of address. If I am not permitted to change that section (my edit was to change the format of the styles), can the section be removed altogether? Sdrqaz (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. --John (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep or throw away?

I suggest that the following is not germane to this article.

On 15 September 1998, Thatcher was awarded with Grand Order of King Dmitar Zvonimir for her "exceptional personal contribution to the promotion of friendly relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Croatia, and great support for the establishment of a free, independent, democratic and sovereign Republic of Croatia." She was also invested as Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Order of Francis I (GCFO) by Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro (then Duke of Calabria) in 2003.

These look like primary sources to me. --John (talk) 01:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you John for raising this. I'm sure none of us wants an edit war. @Mr. D. E. Mophon:, I note you claimed in a edit summary that one of the sources is an equivalent to the London Gazette, which should mean that it is a quality source, even if not in the English language. Your comments here would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

When I helped bring this article through the GA process a few years ago, one guideline we used was to exclude anything there was not strong third-party sourcing for. If this standard is not maintained, the article will go back to being a rag-bag of trivia. --John (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns, John. Let's see what Mr. Mophon has to say. If his claim re the source stands up to scrutiny, it should be useable. Failure to discuss and I'm happy for the claim to go. Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not entirely understand the negative attitude: the most official and a highly original source was given: Narodne novine, which since 1835 is the official gazette of the Republic of Croatia promulgates acts, laws and other rules and regulations of the Croatian Parliament, bylaws of the Croatian Government and also Decrees of the President of the Republic (mandatory according to the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia). A more trustworthy and official source doesn't exist. Okay, it is written in the Croatian language, but that's often the case/policy with many official webpages/sources of governments from other countries. The London Gazette or the the website of the British royal family is understandable written in British English, not the German language. The Spanish Boletín Oficial del Estado most of the times written in Spanish and the website lintjes.nl/ (the website of the Dutch government for announcing who are awarded Dutch Royal Honours) only in Dutch. But this websites are often used and recognized at Wikipedia as good and official sources regarding announcing of granting honours to persons. Both orders are internationally recognized honours (the Grand Order of King Dmitar Zvonimi is an official state (high ranking) state order and the Royal Order of Francis I an internationally recognized and historically important dynastic order, with well-known recipients and highly ranked officials). If you don't believe this a would suggest that you consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals. To already suggest that the edits maybe belongs to a rag-bag of trivia, is rather an annoying and premature attitude. But okay, I will look for third-party sources as well. Dr. D.E. Mophon 10:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• I meant to comment here a few days ago but got side tracked. I agree with what I think John is saying; I'd even go as far as saying that as Thatcher had so many awards *only truly major* ones should be included here. If there is a desperate need for these all to be listed somewhere, why not start an independent article for them? My inclination is to revert that edit. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • "only truly major awards" is a subjective opinion (WP:POV). Honours are important and are therefore often mentioned in a separate section of many Wikipedia biographies; the freedoms of the city are especially important honours. We do have to keep a neutral and objective standpoint about the information and being complete as well as possible. You cannot pick and choose, disregard and omit information because you dislike it (e.g. your mention "desperate need"). Many Wikipedians do find a complete overview of honours and awards important, see all those other biographies of royals, peers, authors, singers, professional sportsmen, and famous politicians as well, with much more elaborate awards sections. The edits do not seriously hamper the readability and weight of this article but instead keep its completeness of it. To avoid constant discussing and disputes: if you personally do not find honours and awards noteworthy to mentioning it, or want to removed it for "aesthetic" reasons, I would suggest you consult the Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals. Dr. D.E. Mophon 09:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk • contribs)

• • • See WP:SUMMARY.--John (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    • As User:Sagaciousphil and I are saying, this is not the place for a comprehensive listing of Thatcher's minor decorations, however well referenced they are. There may be scope for this at Awards and decorations given to Margaret Thatcher or something similar, now that you have found some decent sources. --John (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Comment: I see that John was granted "the Freedom of the City of Cork" (wow, but no article) and that Tony was awarded "the Order of Freedom by the President of Kosovo, Fatmir Limaj" (again no article, but a least a redlink), while Winnie gets his own sub article, of course. I guess that's all "other stuff exists"? (... but I realise that Maggie was sometimes seen smoking a cigar). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
        • I'm just a lowly Wikipedian sex worker, not much of an honor. Yes, honors are important, but some honors are more important than others, and selecting on the basis of strong secondary sourcing (not just mentions but discussions--an indication of noteworthiness) is not subjective. Martin, I'll have one of those cigars. I think I smell a consensus here. (Mr. D. E. Mophon, please sign your name properly; thanks!) Drmies (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Industrial capacity

Eric, if you feel that this is "poorly written" then feel free to rewrite it but without the quote from Hobsbawm which is unnecessary, hyperbolic and fringe.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The sentence here is "During the period 1980-84, United Kingdom's industrial capacity fell by a quarter and the economy shifted towards service industries, a trend which later proved common to all developed countries"

vs.

"The period 1980–84 was, in the words of a Marxist historian, "a veritable industrial holocaust", with the UK's industrial capacity falling by a quarter, and the economy shifted towards service industries, a trend which later proved common in all developed countries"

I actually think in terms of "poor writing" the second is worse. A trend which "proves common" *in all developed countries" is clearly bad grammar. I don't see much difference between "United Kingdom's industrial capacity fell by a quarter" and "with the UK's industrial capacity falling by a quarter". Actually even here "fell" is better than "falling" since this happened 1980-84 not 1980-present.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm also skeptical of Hobsbawm's claim in general and I don't think the "by a quarter" part should be even in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much agree with you, Volunteer Marek. That second version is quite awful. And it's far too much just unsupported opinion. If we are to mention Eric Hobsbawm, who is perfectly notable, can we at least link him, instead of just calling him "a Marxist historian". 217.38.107.6 (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking to yourself Volunteer Marek? Eric Corbett 18:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Are you accusing me of sockpuppetry Eric Corbett? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm asking you a question. Eric Corbett 01:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you asked a question. A fact that I must have been aware of since I answered it. You haven't answered mine. But never-mind. Anyway, the original sentence was much more poorly written.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

There's also problems with the source being misrepresented. Hobsbawm does not say "UK" he says this "industrial holocaust" happened in "ill-advised countries" (one of which was Britain). He doesn't say "industrial capacity" (wtf that is) he says "manufacturing output", a different thing (and he's off on that too, it fell, but not that much - this is probably due to the source being outdated (as well as Marxist)). And he doesn't blame Thatcher for it - in fact Thatcher's name doesn't appear anywhere near the relevant text - but rather "new technologies".

This is of course leaving aside the fact that 1984 is a very convenient cutoff here (manufacturing output recovered afterward so that by the time Thatcher left office it was substantially higher than when she came in).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I wholly agree with you, Volunteer Marek. A barely relevant and biased source being very poorly rewritten. A direct quote from The Age of Extremes, with Hobsbawm plainly credited, might have been acceptable if Thatcher was mentioned. But we are writing an article on Thatcher here, not an A-level essay on economic history. Your initial edits, attempting to improve the text, may not have been perfect, but that does not warrant tit-for-tat reversion and veiled accusations of sockpuppetry. 217.38.170.155 (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oh Eric, there's no socking here, come on. Oh IP, just log in, unless of course you got seduced into violating a topic ban or something; let me know privately and I'll block you without anyone else knowing.

  As for the sentence--nothing wrong with "falling" since it was clearly indicated during which period this "falling" took place. What is preferable also is the quote, which is juicy. I vote for #2. OK it's not a vote. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The first version is clearly better, we should not be including quotes because they are "juicy". Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the second version is better. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The second version is clearly better. Eric Corbett 14:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Neither is good, but the second is clearly garbage. Britains's industrial capacity- to make what?only a propagandist talks about 'capacity' in this way. Interesting and relevant numbers would be output, not capacity.

Gravuritas (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Arms and the woman

What is this Ruritanian codswallop adding to the article?--John (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea how anyone can think this is notable. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Anybody mind if we get rid of it? --John (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I was about to take it out this morning when I noticed the talk page discussion, so I'd certainly not raise any objections to getting rid of it. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Gone. Phew. --John (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain why you object to it? It isn't relevant to her political career, but it's an interesting sidenote. Zacwill (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not notable and adds nothing to the article. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Bombing Libya

The bombing of Libya in 1986 should be mentioned in the lede, as it was by far the most controversial episode of Thatcher's premiership. (217.42.27.128 (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC))

For a premiership marked by huge amounts of controversy on many, many fronts, you are making a wild assertion. Study the period a bit more.

Gravuritas (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Bombing Libya when there was no evidence the country was involved in the nightclub bombing was far more controversial than closing the coal mines. (86.133.85.197 (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC))

Not if you were a coal miner, we cant mention everything in the lead. MilborneOne (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

.....monetarism & high interest rates; union legislation; low taxes; high unemployment; privatization; the Falklands war; the ERM; the IRA..... @the OP- study the period a bit more. Furthermore, as your sentence above and the WP article on the 1986 bombing are incompatible, I suggest you start by working on that article as you believe it be incorrect.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

None of those things killed innocent people, unlike the bombing of Libya. It is claimed the nightclub bombing was carried out by STASI agents, not Libya. (81.159.7.121 (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC))

Er, firstly, your point was 'most controversial' not 'killed most innocent people', secondly were no innocent people involved in the Irish situation?, thirdly, you obviously don't know the history of the coal strike, fourthly... yawn.

Gravuritas (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It was Wilson who sent the army to Northern Ireland, and he closed twice as many coal mines as Thatcher. Coal mining would have ended anyway due to the Climate Change Act. (81.159.6.184 (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC))

Proposal to replace reference of resignation speech

The reference of the resignation speech (currently no. 196, can be found in this part of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher#Challenges_to_leadership_and_resignation) is a 5 minutes video which includes some of her resignation speech. The full resignation speech took half an hour and can be found following the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF_GXMxa-mE I can't make the edition myself because of the page protection. However I would acknowledge if any user with that permission modified the reference. Sam10rc (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: I have already autoconfirmed my account and done the edition myself. Thank you. Sam10rc (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

|answered=Thank you, Sir. I think it's currently exactly as I wished to leave it. Sam10rc (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thatcher as stalking-horse

Thatcher was not initially the obvious replacement, but she eventually became the main challenger, promising a fresh start.

This leaves out the biggest factor in Thatcher's election as party leader - that she was selected as the stalking-horse, to concentrate the anti-Heath vote, while others stood down for the first ballot. It was her very status as a woman that made her seem in no danger of being selected in the second ballot. Valetude (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

That's great. Sources please? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

1953-55

In 1954, Thatcher was defeated when she sought selection as the candidate for the Orpington by-election of January 1955. She was not a candidate in the 1955 general election, as it came fairly soon after the birth of her children

This doesn't make sense. Her kids were born in 53. She stood for election in 54/55, so the explanation for her not standing in the 55 general election doesn't stack up. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It is, more or less, her explanation. "I really just felt the twins were ... only two, I really felt that it was too soon. I couldn't do that and so I didn't try for a candidature then". Mr Stephen (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

OK. So how about amending the text as follows:

She chose not to stand as a candidate in the 1955 general election, in later years stating "I really just felt the twins were ... only two, I really felt that it was too soon. I couldn't do that ."

How's that? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll implement this. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Relations with the Queen

Two things:

1. This content is rather trivial by comparison with the text that follows. I propose that it drops down to the bottom of the section about her time as PM
2. This text is in that section and not relevant to the Queen at all. Any suggestions where to put it? It's also a fantastic example of non-sequitur:

In August 1989, Thatcher queried her government's response to the Taylor Report, writing a hand-written comment on a Downing Street briefing note: "The broad thrust is devastating criticism of the police. Is that for us to welcome? Surely we welcome the thoroughness of the report and its recommendations?"[79] During her time in office, Thatcher practised great frugality in her official residence, including insisting on paying for her own ironing-board.[80]

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No-one commenting. I'm going to just remove it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hatnote?

Given that the Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington article has a hatnote for "The Iron Duke" above its lede, I am slightly unsure as to whether this article should also have such a hatnote:

"The Iron Lady" redirects here. For the film, see The Iron Lady (film).

Any thoughts?--Neve–selbert 01:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes I agree with putting a hatnote there. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. If there's a redirect (as well as other articles and a disambig) there ought to be a hatnote. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Absolutelypuremilk and Chris troutman: Would it be wise to wait for more users to comment on this or should I just go ahead and add the hatnote? Thanks.--Neve–selbert 23:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't rush it. You could have put the hatnote on without asking for discussion but now that you have you may as well wait a day or so. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree. out of the first 50 google book titles with Iron Lady, 45 deal with Thatcher--plus one each for Golda Meir: The Iron Lady of the Middle East and Iron lady of Indian politics: Indira Gandhi & a few novels. Rjensen (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree Currently, if an editor types in "The Iron Lady," they will be re-directed to "Margeret Thatcher" and it will say at the top of the page that they have been re-directed. I think there is a hatnote at the Duke's page because he is best known as the "Duke of Wellington," which is mentioned first in the hatnote. Also, "The Iron Duke" name was used to a far greater extent to refer to Wellington, than the "Iron Lady" is used to refer to Thatcher. TFD (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  Far greater extent? Searching "Iron Lady" AND "Thatcher" in Google Books renders 24,600 results; "Iron Duke" AND "Wellington" only marginally leads with 25,900 results. The most common nickname for Thatcher is undoubtedly "The Iron Lady" just as much as "The Iron Duke" is for Wellington.--Neve–selbert 19:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Added hatnote.--Neve–selbert 21:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

First, second and third ministries

Can we think of better titles to the sections and articles than this? They make her sound like an evangelist or one of the Apostles. Britmax (talk) 08:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure if there is a better word. 'Administration' is too American and 'premiership' could be confused with top-tier sports leagues (Rugby union, the football Premier League...), 'cabinet' would require unnecesary and major changes to adapt the articles to each time a minister was sacked. Perhaps 'legislature' could seem better to someone. However, this brings confussion between the legislative branch and the executive branch of the government, and here the diferences are subtle to the average English speaker. Perhaps the possible confusion with the Apostles raised by your comment could be better than all the ones described here since it is clear to everyone that Thatcher was a politician and was not a 'minister of God'. Sam10rc (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice of AFD

Editors interested in the article are invited to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Lady. – S. Rich (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

"Maggie's Last Party"

Hello all. I'm thinking of adding information on this rather intriguing 1991 rave track on Thatcher to the #Cultural depictions section, which could do with some expanding. I found one source here, although it is a blogpost however. For anybody interested, here's the track on SoundCloud. Considering that the vast majority of politicians rarely get remixed in such a professional way outside the realms of YouTube and the Internet, this genuine record may be worthy of some note. It's Chart Position was at 68 apparently. Any thoughts John?--Nevé–selbert 22:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I am neutral. My instinct is to be very cautious about adding stuff here. Are there good sources commenting on this in the context of Thatcher's legacy? --John (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Rocking. Here's a discogs source which you'll be too reluctant to use, of course. But who are other voice contributors?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC) p.s. V.I.M. are not wikinotable, although last.fm describes them as "a shortlived, but influential British band".

Having just Googled, there are no credible news sources. It's probably much better suited to Cultural depictions of Margaret Thatcher.--Nevé–selbert 21:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@John and Martinevans123: Added to Cultural depictions of Margaret Thatcher. If there's anything to copy-edit or add at all, feel free to edit.--Nevé–selbert 20:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Audacious. But spot on, I'd say. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2016

Half of the country loved he while the over disliked her.

81.109.41.191 (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: Indeed, see the #Legacy section. If you're interested, you are welcome to join the #Paragraph on legacy at lead discussion above.--Nevé–selbert 19:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)