Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Puff piece?

Just skimmed through this article. Can't imagine how it is considered one of Wikipedia's best; I would almost think it had been written by publicists for Thatcher. Hardly any criticism, and no mention that many around the world consider her policies vile and anti-human. I also seem to remember reading that she's become quite dotty in her old age--no mention of that in the article, though. 192.139.140.243 06:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, maintaining a neutral point of view, original research, reliable sources and biographies of living persons. You may be correct that the current article is biased to a more positive point of view, but before it can be changed, reliable sources need to be found to confirm your view point as being factual.

Given the large numbers of supporters and detractors of Margaret Thatcher around the world there is a tendency from some editors to try to introduce overtly positive or negative statements just to support their own view point. If you decide to add a more negative aspect to this article, please ensure that you have adhered to the policies I have linked to above. That way the risk of an edit war over your changes will hopefully be reduced. :) Road Wizard 00:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the first paragraph of the "downfall" section in particular struck me as in need of some rephrasing, so it doesn't come across as so pro-Thatcher. Fennessy 11:59, 27 May 2007

I can't believe there is no critisism section, or at least a mention of how much some people hate her. I remember watching some British topical talk show and one of the panelists mentioned they were going to have to build a public urinal/disco ontop of her grave beacause of the sheer mass of people who resented her. This overwhelming resentment at least deserves a mention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greed23 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 10 June 2007.

As mentioned above, you can add a negative perspective to the article if you have the sources to back up your statements. See WP:BLP#Criticism for more information. Road Wizard 14:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That is nonsense, try and add anything that paints Maggie in a negative light on this article and it will be remove and the "offending" editor attacked. This article reads like a fan website article rather than wiki article.--Vintagekits 14:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I have not been involved in editing this article beyond a little work on images that violated the Fair Use policy, so I am completely neutral here. Can you show me an example of a critical statement that someone tried to add and the reliable sources used to back it up? Road Wizard 18:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a song about it (basicly a criticism of Thatcher's Utalitarialism's effect on general society. It's a bit profane, here's the lyrics:

<removed for copyright reasons>

and here's the song:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gjfSucUhJiQ

Here's another page that seemed to have some views:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4337448.stm

Basicly the left wing despises and despise her to such an extent that it deserves mentioning.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greed23 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 11 June 2007.

I have removed the lyrics because of Wikipedia's copyright policies as I doubt we have permission to reproduce them here. I think you should go back and read WP:Reliable Sources as a song and a BBC public comment page are a little weak. What they may be able to support is the statement "some people don't like Margaret Thatcher or her policies". Hardly the most stunning of encyclopedic statements in history.

I know that there will be lots of reliable sources out there with criticism of Thatcher and her government - all politicians have their critics - what you need to do is find a source of a more acceptable quality and quote it. Try to focus on published facts rather than opinions (e.g. if you see a web page that says "I protested against Thatcher because of___" this would be considered unreliable as there is nothing to verify its authenticity. On the other hand, an article in a respected newspaper that said "A thousand people protested against Thatcher because of___" would be a good citation for mentioning the protests in the article). Road Wizard 18:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

All succesful political leaders are hated, SqueakBox 00:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to the same degree as Maggie.--Vintagekits 11:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Danny Morrison described her as "that unctuous self-righteous fucker" (page 207, ISBN 0-330-49388-4 in case anyone needs a source). One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we have something that isn't an opinion? Or at least something with a little more weight than name-calling? Does Danny Morrison explain why he calls her that? And who is Danny Morrison? Good sources for you to identify are biographies of political contemporaries (these will contain elements of bias but we can handle that if they explain their points clearly) or newspaper articles relating to key events in her life.

You can find quotes from a thousand people that have called her names, but what does that really prove? "A thousand people have called Thatcher a _____" is also a little poor for an encyclopedia article. Again I refer you to WP:V and WP:RS for guidance on the quality of the sources we require here. Road Wizard 22:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm more than aware of policy, I was merely using that as an example. Perhaps you'd like to apply your comments to the current "Legacy" section, and prune the unsourced pro-Thatcher POV? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is something in the article that you would like to challenge, then go ahead and challenge it. I am not going to do your work for you. Road Wizard 07:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe I just did, I challenged the entire section. So why don't you apply your standards to that section right now? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you haven't challenged anything. You have just asked me to do the work of challenging and editing for you. If you don't like what that section contains then follow proper procedure - add the appropriate dispute tag. As I said before I am completely neutral in this article and I am only trying to facilitate a discussion where people claim to have added negative statements that have been backed up by reliable sources, only to have those statements removed. I have yet to see any evidence of these statements or a single reliable source. What you do to try to improve the article is entirely up to you and the consensus of the other editors. Road Wizard 20:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I placed an NPOV tag because of the highly biased implication stating "She (Margaret Thatcher) remembered that Pinochet had been a key ally of Britain during the Falklands War but preferred to forget the tyranny, torture and mass-murder committed by his regime." I placed the tag but abstained from removing the offending line out of fairness to see if anyone had any objections.

I changed the wording slightly. While there is no way to establish what memories Margaret Thatcher chooses to keep, she clearly visited General Pinochet despite the well-documented abuses of the Chilean government while he was in power. Hollowluke 15:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Pinochet's alleged record is not in the scope of this article, SqueakBox 16:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that reads much better. Thanks for the editing. NoHitHair

She rightly supported Pinochet for his help during the Falklands War. We would have beat the Argies anyway but everylittle bit helps . . . added in this edit on 12 May 2007 by User:General Peabody

I agree, I think Britain should support any dictator or tyrant, no matter how murderous or abhorent, provided they help us and suck up to us. Who cares after all about Chileans getting tortured and murdered? They are nothing to us. Thatcher was absolutely right to support Saddam too, and Suharto. I can't understand all this hand-wringing over insignificant foreigners getting tortured and murdered. I don't care how many people Pinochet or Saddam murdered, they are nothing to us, while these dictators are prepared to be our allies, for whatever reason, we should always turn a blind eye to their atrocities and crimes against humanity, or rather as I prefer, their excesses. We are too busy advancing the cause of freedom to worry about the victims of our fascist comrades in arms. Pinochet should be not be remembered as a tyranical mass murderer but as a hero for helping the British Empire win back a small island from another similar fascist tyrant. Even though we'd have won it back anyway. These so-called 'victims' of Pinochet's terror are of no relevance whatsoever and should be of no concern to Great Britain. Margaret is still far too busy being one of the world's most notable exponents of freedom and liberty to worry about the victims of our fascist friend Mr Pinochet and rightly so. Let em' rot in Pinochet's dungeons anyway, its their fault for trying to oppose a man who was wise enought to be a loyal ally to the United Kingdom, so more fool them. 217.38.66.40 06:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Er...do I detect a hint of sarcasm there, Mr. 217? Flonto 19:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

More than a hint of ignorance too as if Chileans themselves didnt support Pinochet, SqueakBox 19:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I dare say some Chileans did support Pinochet, but if that had mattered to Pinochet he would probably have waited until the end of Salvador Allende's term of office and defeated him in an election, rather than deposing him in a bloody coup in 1973. Anyway, this was a matter which attracted sigificant public attention at the time and, as such, was part of the latter part of Mrs Thatcher's political career.Esquimo 14:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you'll have to forgive my ignorance. Having read quite widely on the subject many years back, I was under the impression that it was certain sectors of the population that supported Pinochet, rather as one might expect, namely parts of the middle and upper classes predominatly, along with some right-wing 'patriotic' working-class types (the sort we call Sun readers in Britain). I wasn't aware that 'Chileans' in general supported Pinochet, as if they all have the same opinions and think as one, but I stand corrected. 'As if Chileans didn't support Pinochet' does sound like simplistic propaganda and slightly meaningless as such but I'm nontheless certain its absolutely true. I'm sure I remember reading that quite a large number of Chileans - say, the large majority of the working classes who regarded him as a fascist tyrant - took issue with his torture and state-sactioned murder policies and were quite passionately opposed to his rule. My mistake, obviously he was universally loved by Chileans. Probably even by the couple of thousand he lined up in the national football stadium and slaughtered. I'm sure if some secret police made their way over to your house and tortured you for your political beliefs you might take a different view of such matters but nontheless, no you're right, Pinochet was absolutely wonderful, as I pointed out above, a view I hold even more strongly now that my ignorance has been corrected by your superior knowledge and I now know that Pinochet wasn't actually opposed at all in Chile. I'm sure that the fact that when the good General finally had the grace to offer Chileans a democratic vote on his rule they chose to kick him out at the first opportunity was merely show of gratitude on their behalf, enabling him to have an early retirement and enjoy his huge wealth. And of course, thats all that matters isn't it, that he was 'supported by Chileans'? Margaret's good friend and trading partner Saddam Hussein was also supported by huge numbers of Iraqis. Hitler was supported by rather a lot of Germans as well I believe. My friend, I think you should head over to Chile as soon as possible and explain to these ingrates who were tortured or had loved ones murdered by Pinochet just how ignorant they are to have the audacity to take exception to some aspects of his rule, perhaps you can enlighten them a little and show them the error of their ways. Sod these lily-livers who find something innately morally abhorrent about torture and murder, or about arming and backing fascist tyrants. What do these people get these strange ideas from? As one of Maggie's ministers once said, they are "emotional misunderstandings". And he was talking about Saddam, and the Iraqis used to fill the streets to cheer and salute him, so there you go. 217.38.66.40 06:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to think of someone who supported Pinochet, Hitler AND Hussein. Wow, you're REALLY faithful to human rights, aren't you? 81.145.240.149 15:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Who supported Hitler or Saddam? Nobody on here has expressed any support for either. Thatcher did support the latter, but nobody on here has. If you're referring to Squeakbox, he does appear to be defending Pinochet, but he hasn't defended Saddam or Hitler. If you're referring to me, the post above was intended to be a sarcastic comment on Squeakbox's seeming assertion that supporting mass-murdering tyrants is just fine so long as some of their subjects support them, something I imagined would stand out as being fairly obvious... 217.38.66.40 12:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Then you'll have to excuse my stupidity. It's just that you claimed, on the subject of Saddam, AND I QUOTE: "...the Iraqis used to fill the streets to cheer and salute him, so there you go." I found that pretty weird, considering the fact that most Iraqis didn't have a choice but to "cheer and salute" him, considering the fact that he's a ruthless dictator. Yes, I called him a ruthless dictator. Oh, and when you say that you support Pinochet, people are going to find it odd, especially since you also said, and I quote again: "I can't understand all this hand-wringing over insignificant foreigners getting tortured and murdered." Ah, well, these "insignificant foreigners" are still human beings, and people don't enjoy it when the Prime Minister of a democratic country chooses to support this reign of tyranny. That makes him (Pinochet, and Thatcher, for that matter) just as bad as Hitler and Hussein. (In case you hadn't guessed by now, I'll not be voting Conservative this year.) Anyway, I probably can't change your opinion, I'm just saying that some people might find what you've said a little offensive? 81.145.240.149 04:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Go to Wikidictionary. Look up the word 'irony'. Then look up the word 'sarcasm'. Then re-read my posts. In case you still struggle, then I'll spell it out. They arn't MY views, it's a PARODY. Squeakbox says Thatcher was right to support Pinochet and seems to quite like the guy. He also claims that Pinochet was "supported by Chileans", a breath-takingly asinine statement. Some right-wing Chileans supported him (though not Chileans in general, as Squeakbox would have us believe). This is true of any tyrant, they all tend to enjoy some domestic support from right-wing bigots and the business community, while the majority oppose them. The posts above are intended to be a parody of Squeakbox's apparent callous disregard of Pinochet's victims and his apologetics for the mass-murderering butcher, and his approval of Thatcher's support for him. These are the typical attitudes of many right-wing foreign policy "realists" who couldn't care less how many "insignificant foreigners" get slaughtered by their favoured tyrants provided they allign themselves with the West. They aren't MY views, they are a sarcastic parody of THEIRS. I don't think their victims are insignificant, THEY do, though they wouldn't like to admit it. Sqeakbox and any other right-wing "realist" would never honestly state "I don't care how many Chileans got gassed in football stadiums by Pinochet. I don't care about how many people are getting tortured and murdered by Maggie's good friend and trading partner Saddam. They are inconsequential foreigners. Why should I care about them? Pinochet and Saddam are friends of Great Britain. My country, right or wrong". So I'm saying it for them, to point out what they really mean to say and to shame their moral degeneracy. There is barely a single word in the above posts that represents my views, I'm being sarcastic. As for Saddam's supporters filling the streets, well they did, especially in the early days of his reign. I'm sure some people were forced to cheer him, but he had some genuine supporters, as does any tyrant. Some simple-minded uneducated bigots will support their dictators in a country. The majority will oppose them (there was a small minority of idiots in the British working class who wanted Oswald Mosely to run the country). Some Iraqis did support Saddam, they were in a minority quite obviously. My point was that since Squeakbox is arguing that Thatcher was right to support Pinochet because "(some) Chileans supported him", then obviously he should follow his own ludicrous and immoral argument through to it's logical conclusion - that Saddam, Hitler, Suharto and the rest should be supported as well, since they had some mindless suporters in their own countries too. Squeakbox probably dosen't like that being pointed out. I'm obviously not saying I agree with supporting these people, I'm saying that Squeakbox should if he's consistent in thinking that tyrants should be supported if thy happen to have some domestic supporters (of course, he would actually be defending Saddam if this were 20 years ago, saying "Iraqis support him" and "he's a good ally"). Of course the views are offensive, they are supposed to be, I'm spelling out how remarkably callous and immoral some people's views actually are if you just state what they really think (Squeakbox probably dosen't even realise the implications of what he says and that he's effectively saying he couldn't care less about the victims of fascist tyrants, he probably dosen't give it any thought at all). Of course Thatcher is a moral degenerate and a deeply callous human being. She not only is prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Chilean butcher in public to try and help him escape justice for the murder of thousands of people, she also helped arm Saddam to the teeth, knowing fully well that he was using the weapons in mass slaughter of civilians. That's just the tip of the iceberg with regard to how many mass-murderers and state torturers that Maggie aided and still admires. Sorry if I seem brusque, but it actually never occurred to me that the obvious sarcasm and irony of the posts above could possibly go over somebody's head and that anyone could conceivably read them as being serious. 217.38.66.40 20:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, sorry, but you'll have to be realistic about the situation, because some people (like myself) are very, very, very, very anti-war. As I said, I'm very sorry for my stupidity, given your obvious intellect and sophistication, I just mean that, as I mentioned, I'm one of millions of people who is against war in every way, shape or form, and when you say something like: "I can't understand all this hand-wringing over insignificant foreigners getting tortured and murdered..." ...then people like myself WILL look down on it, even if you later reveal you weren't being serious and, to be fair, after re-reading your second post, I realise that one has become fairly obvious what you meant by it, however, the problem is, on your FIRST post, there was (almost!) no hint whatsoever that you weren't taking it seriously. Again, I deeply apologise for being the wally I so clearly am, but I can't help it now. I don't see what the fuss was about in the first place, I don't know why there was so much hand-wringing over the line "She (Margaret Thatcher) remembered that Pinochet had been a key ally of Britain during the Falklands War but preferred to forget the tyranny, torture and mass-murder committed by his regime." I think this was absolutely right. Yes, critics of my opinion of this would probably site Wikipedia's "NPOV Policy", Places of Verifiability, etc. etc. etc, but I believe this didn't need to be done in the first place because there was tyranny, torture and mass-murder during Pinochet's regime, not even the most loyal supporter could possibly deny that. Back to the other subject, I am very sorry for misunderstanding you, and I totally agree with your posts now that I realise, Margaret Thatcher was indeed very, very evil. One thing I also found rather unfair in this article is the way that, for some reason, it is so positive about Thatcher that it was clearly scrawled off unthinkingly in about 11 minutes by an over-faithful worshipper. If this person ISN'T obsessed then why has everyone forgot that Mrs. Thatcher was the one that introduced the Poll Tax for the ONE REASON that the poor would be weak and the rich strong. Surely, if they have any guts at all, the author could give a reason for this? Anyway, I'm sorry as ever, and hope that you will accept my apology now that we actually understand each other. 81.145.240.149 22:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well obviously I accept your apology. I wasn't trying to suggest you were a wally, I just thought that the failure to see the sarcastic nature of the posts was rather baffling to say the least (as for my "intellect and sophistication", I wish...I'm just quite capable of figuring out that supporting mass-murderers is morally abhorrent, unlike Squeakbox and his like-minded associates - as I say, Squeakbox probably dosen't even think it through and is probably a perfectly nice individual in many ways, I'm sure it's simply that the Chileans who were having their finger-nails ripped out and being gassed to death in football stadiums have never crossed his mind, nor the obvious implications of Maggie doing her best to help him escape justice). I don't agree that there is no obvious sarcasm or irony in the first post (one poster did suggest sarcastically that there was a "hint of irony" in the post after all), in particular the statement "we are too busy advancing the cause of freedom to worry about the victims of our fascist comrades in arms" should probably have given the game away at least. Incidentally, I'm anti-war myself, so I certainly wasn't trying to upset anti-war posters (I'm not anti-war per se, I'm not a pacifist, I'd be in favour of removing tyrants by force under the correct circumstances and in the right way, but I'm certainly strongly opposed to the ludicrous and murderous Iraq adventure). In any case, with regard to the article, there is little point in trying to include certain hard facts about Margaret Thatcher's record even in brief form and in the most neutral language, as is the case with most other Western political saints we are supposed to admire (one exception is Jimmy Carter, for obvious reasons he's considered to be more than fair game). You might manage to get some material in, but they'll draw the line eventually. If Maggie were editing the article herself, she'd actually be quite happy to write plenty of material about her highly positive views of Pinochet including her laughably absurd and morally bankrupt defence of his torture and mass murder, as she expressed back a few years back in an interview with ITN, if I remember rightly. She seems proud of her immorality and apologetics for murderers, and seems completely oblivious to how it makes her look (or she dosen't care). But her acolytes are by no means oblivious and I imagine would be very keen to keep certain details about her support for Pinochet and other fascist killers and her statements on these subjects off the article, doubtless because it would contravene "NPOV" (it would be pointless to suggest that keeping such things off the article actually ensures that it isn't NPOV, because it's turning the piece into a semi-hagiography by omitting uncomfortable facts which might cast doubt on her official reputation as a great 'defender of liberty'). Unless his article's been changed recently, you'd have no idea looking at Ronald Reagan's page that he armed and funded death squads and fascist tyrants in Latin America, and what this led to in the region (he called throat-slitting thugs in Nicaragua "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers"). If someone adds this to the article in even the most neutral and non-judgmental language, sticking to hard facts, it gets deleted (or massively censored, so that uncomfortable facts are removed and the information reduced to "Reagan gave support to opposition groups in Latin America, which was regarded by some, especially left-wing critics, as controversial", or something similar. You can't mention, however briefly, the actual actions of Reagan's comrades in Latin America, that has to be kept quiet). Nobody should expect articles to consist of condemnation, judgemental language or excess details of every dodgy action of these people, but relevant information should be included, regardless of whether it might lead some readers to regard the subjects in a favourable or unfavourable light. Little chance of that. I'm not knocking Wikipedia, it's a useful resource and a great idea, but anything like this will suffer from contributors who want to keep unfortunate facts off biographies of feted world leaders (or even well-meaning neutral commentators who may innocently think they are maintaining neutrality by deleting highly controversial sounding facts). If some celebrity or journalist had stood next to a facist dictator, praised him and argued he should not face justice for the murder of thousands of people, and then actually defended and tried to justify his murderous repression on ITN, it would be well covered in their Wiki biography. Not Maggie's though. Try and add some of the stuff though, just try adding that she invited him round to tea, posed for photographs with him, said she thought he shouldn't be tried for his crimes and then quote her own words about why Pinochet was right to murder and torture, if you can find a transcript of the interview. See if it stays in, but I doubt it. Any suggestion that the Pinochet episode isn't notable is absolutely absurd - it was big news around the world when she appeared in public to defend him, and the story ran and ran as she continued to back him. And of course it's notable that a widely admired Western leader was a close friend and defender of a mass-murderer, and proud of it. Maybe the wording you suggest is not ideal - Thatcher didn't really "prefer to forget" Pinochet's tyranny, she defended it, and lied about it's motivation as well. It's also not strictly true that her only reason for adoring Pinochet was his support during the Falklands War, it's the main reason but she also loved him due to anti-Communist, staunchly pro-U.S. line and the fact that he turned his country into a Milton Friedman inspired neo-liberal economic experiment. He was probably the biggest and most extreme adherent to Friedman's (and Thatcher's) economic idealogy. She loved him for that. As for the Poll Tax, I don't think Maggie was really motivated by wanting to grind the poor into the dirt, she just couldn't care less about them one way or the other so the likely effects of her poll tax policy on the lower classes were simply of no concern. She couldn't see why the rich should pay more for their services than the poor, it's just consistent with her ideology. Ability to pay was irrelevant to her. She would probably have liked a flat tax on income as well in an ideal world. It had the predicted effect, it reportedly transferred millions of pounds from the poor to the rich and increased the inequality gap. I suppose you could put that last fact in the article if you can find a source for it. Might be worth mentioning, if you can locate a source, that Maggie allegedly decided to start selling weapons to Argentina a matter of months after the end of the Falklands War, in the full knowledge that if conflict broke out again over the islands, that these weapons would be used against British servicemen. Very patriotic Maggie, as we all know, but business always came first. 217.38.66.40 03:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes. Just yes. I agree with all of that, it's just that I live in Scotland, currently. I remember travelling ALL THE WAY to London to campaign against the Iraq War. Blair noticed us, but-oh, how convinient-the Iraq War wasn't delayed one second. Now that is what you call irritating. That's what I meant by "Very anti-war." I do understand what you mean by the fact that she didn't really "prefer to forget" Pinochet's torture, tyranny, etc, but she did think of him as a "key component" during the Falklands War, but as you mentioned, she didn't care, probably meaning that, technically, she did prefer to forget his torture and whatnot, and the undeniably obvious effects, but deep down, she knew everything that was going on. Margaret definetely did not care about the poor, to everyone who wants to deny that hideously obvious fact, I live in a particularly remote area in, as mentioned, Scotland, so I can absolutely 100% confirm this. Practically half the population of where I live was either on the streets, living with richer friends or living in a beaten-up caravan they found in the middle of nowhere. I also have an Irish heritage, so I could probably come up with plenty sources all over the internet that the Conservatives (under Thatcher) were by far the WORST on the Irish people. I'm not saying that they just randomly sent in death squads to kill as many fenians as possible (which many past prime ministers actually did, as a matter of fact), but introducing the Poll Tax in a place where people were probably already feeling the effects that me and the rest of citizens here in Scotland were during the Poll Tax was the most foolish thing I've heard of in my entire life. Why hasn't anyone done that yet? Like I said, these people are obsessed. Squeakbox probably wouldn't care about this if he found out, because he is probably over-loyal to England, and, due to obvious facts that don't need explaining, probably doesn't give a damn what the Irish think. To be honest, if our pal Augosto Pinochet was an IRISH dictator who did to the Irish what he did to Chileans, Thatcher (and, hence, probably Squeakbox) still wouldn't care, and would probably still defend Pinochet and all his associates, given that, as you said, they probably didn't think through the effects of having so many people sent to the slaughter-house with absolutely no motivation, just pure greed. On that subject, I agree with you that the fact that nobody on this thing is covering the Pinochet stuff well enough. I could probably already come up with the fact that, as well as many others, noted Chilean singer Victor Jara was killed under Pinochet. If anyone refuses to accept that, then I'll just keep modifiying it until I'm practically shoving it down their throat. Anyway, as aforementioned, I think I could easily find several sources for the unforgivable way that Margaret Thatcher treated the Irish. Also, I am not in any way saying England wasn't affected by any of this, I remember hearing about the riots, I'm just saying that the other countries around it, i.e Scotland and Northern Ireland, with a poorer economy would be affected much worse. I suppose that Thatcher did enjoy Pinochet's disgustingly similar government to hers, but still, that needs mentioning as well. Besides that, all about the Falklands War needs to be mentioned, with whatever source anyone can find. I will definetely try and contribute to this article with all the truths about the Falklands war and the treatment of all the other countries in the United Kingdom, but, as you said, how long will they stay? I thought so. Anyway, I'll do my best. 81.145.241.236 12:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Scuse the intrusion, but since my hint here wasn't appreciated, I will try to be a bit more clear.

• Is the NPOV Tag issue solved?
• Is this further discussion improving the article on Margaret Thatcher?
• Or would you guys like to chat a bit further?

If its the last point, it would be really appreciated if the discussion is continued somewhere else, your talk pages would already be an improvement. Of course, in good wiki practice, I have to link to some nice policies & guidelines to boost my point a bit: WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#BLOG & WP:TALK. --Van helsing 13:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, sorry for deleting your comment, I just thought that you where talking random nonsense, but obviously not so, thanks for being more clear. I will answer your questions consecutively:

• I don't think so, we are trying to discuss how to help it as well as other issues.
• As mentioned above, that's one of the thing's we're trying to discuss, so it's not just a personal debate, we are speaking about adding more truth and less bias to this article as well.
• Sort of, but it doesn't need to be taken anywhere else because of the discussion on improvement of this article. So, to answer your questions in a nutshell, yes, yes, and yes. 81.145.242.11 16:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, don’t mind me, carry on. Guess it isn’t doing any harm. --Van helsing 16:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I knew about the Poll Tax being introduced in Scotland first and this was regarded as a quite bizarre thing to do, especially since the Tories by this point had hardly any support in Scotland (surely it would have been fairer to try and introduce it in the Home Counties before anywhere else, make the people who actually voted for her policies see how they liked it first?). At the time, I remember people thought she was using Scotland as some kind of laboratory, to see if the tax was workable before introducing it elsewhere, but this idea was kind of discredited when it was a disaster in Scotland and extremely unpopular of course, aside from being difficult to administer, but she still went ahead and introduced it everywhere else. There was in fact some specific reason as to why it was introduced in Scotland before anywhere else but I can't remember what it was off hand, should be easy enough to find out though. Thatcher made the critical mistake of believing she was unstoppable, obviously because she had come out on top in every battle with the lower classes thus far. She couldn't see that the Poll Tax was a step too far and people were not going to take it. Aside from the problems over Europe, this was the main reason the Tories had to get rid of her, she refused to admit defeat and repeal the tax. She believed she was all-powerful and had become completely divorced from reality. I think it was her, it may have been one of her ministers but I think it was actually her, who said during the initial stages of the Poll Tax crisis that as soon as they heard the squeals of anguish from the lower classes, they knew they were doing the right thing and should stick to their guns. Andrew Marr referred to this quote a few weeks back in his documentary on her. If anyone can find that quote and if it is her who actually said it, that should go in the article, I think it's a rather a striking insight into her mindset.

She was rather vile over the Irish issues, though she seemed to alter her persepctive a bit when the IRA actually came close to killing her. Of course, she was allowing Shoot-to-Kill and let Sands die, the latter rightly got Britain heavily condemned all around the world and she was even criticised by her own MP's over that. I'm not entirely certain though she was any worse than Heath's government, some of the extraordinary abuses and atrocities comminting in Northern Ireland under Heath are breathtaking. Heath somehow blocked publication of a book which would have revealed what was going on in Northern Ireland - so much for free speech - and I think it was actually Thatcher who allowed it's publication 10 years later.

I remember Victor Jara, wasn't he actually one of the people murdered at the national football stadium? That's Pinochet, a great defender of freedom and liberty according to Thatcher, murdering folk singers whose songs he regards as 'subversive'. It's like if the U.S. dragged Bob Dylan off to R.F.K. stadium and shot him for writing Blowing in the Wind. There should be far more in the article about her relationship with Pinochet and her statements condoning this kind of insanity and state terrorism (she never mentioned Jara, doubt she knows who he is, but she still defended Pinochet's murderous actions). More stuff about the Falklands should be on there too. In particular the fact that Defence Secretary David Owen and the then-Labour government prevented a conflict with Argentina over the Falklands in the late 70's by properly protecting the islands from invasion, that Thatcher meanwhile woefully failed to protect the islands and hence allowed the 1982 invasion to happen in place in the first place, and that she completely ignored a peace agreement which would have seen the Argentines withdraw (Edward Heath described the terms as "far too good to turn down" if I remember rightly) and opted instead to sink the Belgrano, predictably causing the Argentines to withdraw their peace offer. Quite a lot of people lost their lives thanks to these particular examples of Thatcher's 'statecraft', and it was certainly sickeningly ironic to watch her lapping up the adulation of all the mindless, jingoistic, Union Jack waving hero-worshippers after the conflict had ended. She should have been sacked for gross incompetence after leaving the islands virtually undefended in the first place. 217.38.66.40 04:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree. One helluva lot of work needs to be done to this article. I left this especially for the original author, here's the basic list:

1. Stop being so Thatcher-obsessed. Just because certain people like her and think that she was a great defender of liberty and freedom, doesn't mean everyone will (as is obvious by the comments being left here).

2. Stop pretending that significant issues involving Maggie Thatcher never happened. "Poll Tax? I ain't never heard of no Poll Tax." "Pinochet? Who dat, fool?" Just stop it. Also, give mention to the fact that the Poll Tax was introduced in Scotland first, that her personal friendship and political relationship with Pinochet crossed the boundaries of a mere "how do you do?" and how disgusting Thatcher was involving the Irish issues.

3. The Falklands War. Yes, I know there's several sections about it devoted to this article, but they just aren't written well enough. Change it, please!

4. Her interview with ITN. Has everyone forgotten about that, or have they just swept it under the rug? Add that back in, and see number 2 for more lectures on pretending that things never actually happened.

5. More sources. This article seems to say, as aforementioned, that Thatcher was a great defender of liberty and freedom. Can you prove that? If not, then it's time for such material to be completely removed. No exceptions.

Well, what do you think of my little list? 81.145.242.133 14:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)