Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 11

Photo selection
I count twelve photos on the Thatcher page, of which only four are not with American presidents or other American officials or in American contexts. Would it be possible to get a wider selection, so that it did not appear that she's important only because she was good friends with Ron and Nancy Reagan? Jontomkittredge (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is that works by US government employees (eg official photographers) are automatically placed in the Public Domain so we are free to use them with no legal hoops to jump through. UK official photographs will be under Crown Copyright, so can't easily be used (until 50 years after they were published anyway).  If you can find someone who has a photo of her which they took and are prepared to upload under an appropriate license then fine.  Otherwise the ones which are easily available to be used are likely to originate in the US.  David Underdown (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Leader of the Opposition 1975-1979
If feel that the sentence "The Labour Government was running into difficulties with industrial disputes and rising unemployment, and eventually collapsing public services during the winter of 1978–79, popularly dubbed the "Winter of Discontent"." should be modified to read "dubbed by the media "The Winter of Discontent"."

This phrase may have become accepted later as a generally recognised discription of this period, but it wasn't in common use amongst ordinary people at the time, and it presents an unfair and simplistic view of what was actually going on at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.154.65 (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For most of it it was winter and a lot of people were discontented, sounds a pretty fair representation to me. Unless you want 'Period of time in which most public services went down the ******* and everyone was thoroughly fed up'. Besides this is what it is now commonly known as to the public in general.Willski72 (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Which public, Willski72? I remember roughly equal quantities of discontent either side of the election, and far more discontent in her later reign. However, these are all personal viewpoints, so irrelevant to this article. Although it's certainly true that the 'winter of discontent' was a media coinage, justified or not, (unfortunately) wikipedia seems to rely very heavily on established media for sources. Wouldn't it be best to cite the phrase to the article where it was first used? I think this is a serious problem in the article - the newspapers of Britain were (and still are, to some extent) massively divided over thatcher. Citing the extremes (The Sun, Telegraph, Guardian, etc) gives a very misleading impression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.210.26 (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that the media coined the phrase but the simple fact is that that is what it is now commonly known as. Perphaps a compromise could be reached such as "dubbed by the media and now often known as the Winter of Discontent." Whenever i hear about it or read about it (not just in newspapers) this is what it is called, i'm afraid its one of those names that sticks, like "black wednesday" for when Britain crashed out of the ERM in 1992. James Callaghan for example didnt actually say "crisis what crisis" but a lot of people i know would swear blind he did. You could quite reasonably argue that discontent was rife throughout the 70's and 80's especially in certain areas of Britain but for some reason that winter stuck in peoples minds, maybe because of the simple fact that it ushered in 18 years of Thatcherite Conservatism and 12 years of New Labour or maybe because of the Shakesperean flair of the name, no-one really knows.Willski72 (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Biased article
The entire article is riddled with bias - celebrating Thatcher's achievements, but not noting her failures. For instance, the 1 in 10 unemployment is almost omitted, despite the huge impact it had on Thatcher's reign. Also, her controversial attempt to introduce the poll tax - something that lead to widespread rioting, is not (?) mentioned. Not to go into her severe inroads into schools, universities, her cuts of funding to institutions - leaving theaters, museums and opera houses both barred to the poor and closing down. The crowning glory is presenting a Daily Telegraph (strong right wing) newspaper poll as an accurate reflection of the feelings of english people towards Baroness Thatcher. To call her 'well remembered' is beyond ridiculous, given the depth of bitterness towards the woman who, for many, destroyed British society. I'm afraid for this article, 'controversial' is simply sailing to close to the wind to be accurate. 'Widely disliked' would fit her exit from office better. Or 'senile'. Better still, would be to discuss her extreme polarization of english society.

(She's also the only Prime Minister I know of for whom large scale celebrations are planned the minute she finally kicks it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.210.26 (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I know many people who would agree with the above rant who would also say that Arthur Scargill was brilliant etc etc despite the fact that he plainly was not. I agree with the fact that criticisms should be more liberally dispersed within the article as there are quite a few however that is to be expected with someone who lasted as long and reformed as much as she did. I know another Prime Minister for whom massive celebrations are planned the moment he leaves office never mind dies! Give you a hint, the initials are GBWillski72 (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Unsigned user here - aren't personal opinions irrelevant? I don't think it matters what the contributors opinions are on Scargill or GB, or even Donald duck. Wikipedia should be objective - which means it should be well sourced, factually accurate, lacking weasel-words, and without discernable POV. As far as I can see, this article fails on all but the first of these criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.210.26 (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been reading through the article closely, and I've realized that either Margaret Thatcher had an incredibly smooth and popular reign, or this article was written by fans, rather than historians. I believe the first statement that could be construed as negative or controversial is around 500 words in, ("...and imposed public expenditure cuts.."), and includes the justification. The second ("Critics regarded the comment as a veiled reference") one section later, the third ("Civil unrest in Britain resulted in") includes the assertion (uncited) that calls for policy change were essentially media-only affairs, and ends in a touchingly triumphant note ("this lady's not turning"). The fourth is an entire paragraph of facts and figures, objective, (from "Thatcher lowered..." to "long term growth.") and ends in a quotation from a book entitled "..No Alternative: Why ... Thatcher Matters" (no need to guess the bias). The fifth is a reference to Oxford's 'deliberate snub', which is unique so far in that it is not ameliorated in any manner. The sixth reference to controversy is centered around the miner's strike, the "thousands of jobs" lost, and the scrapping of the shipyards. This includes a mention of an (apparently irrelevant) murder of a taxi driver, and a brief mention of violence at the strikes. The seventh, referring to the abolition of the GLC, appears to be another rare haven of relatively balanced coverage. The eighth, 'a skeptical british public', again makes attempt at balance, but rather simplistically blames the poll tax controversy on the local councils. In any case, this section should be expanded. The fall from power section, naturally, refers to negative public sentiment and general political turbulence. However, as is typical of this article, it fills out the gaps with charming Thatcher quotes. Of what relevance? No idea, but they look great. Anyhow, I've been laboring the point somewhat to ensure that my reading is as objective as possible, and that I note the good as well as the flawed. However, I believe the point I make is very clear. In some 6000 words in an article about the reign of the most influential, controversial and transformative politicians in modern british history, there are only nine instances where the article notes any furor over the incredibly sensitive issues that she tended to battle over. More incredibly, out of nine notes that fall short of triumph, five of these are muddied, countered, or ameliorated. Now either she was simply the most successful, diplomatic and smooth-operating prime-minister ever, or this article has major and correctable flaws. I propose a complete overhaul, beginning with removing a large amount of the Thatcher sound-bites and the references to opinionated biographies. This article would also be vastly improved if it stuck to objective facts, rather than arguments for and against specific issues. Finally, I propose that, given the polarized nature of the english press on Thatcher, they should either be considered (in this article) as unreliable sources, or they should have their political affiliation clearly marked.213.1.210.26 (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I second the above post, fairs fair after all. The poll tax was a relative disaster which was Thatcher's fault more than any other, most quotes are not necessary it should just keep those that most British people remember ("You turn if you want to..." etc), newspapers are biased FACT and so the political position each side took (some have changed since then) should be made clear. The violence surrounding the miners strike could do with being explained more with the violence of both sides put forward as fair as possible. (The taxi driver was actually killed by miners who threw a brick through his windscreen while he was taking a 'scab' to work.)Willski72 (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also considering the amount of quotes by Thatcher, perphaps Geoffrey Howe's one in the House of Commons on resigning could be used, cant quite remember the wording but it was a devestating blow to her authority and really showed the divide beginning to open in her cabinet. (something about cricket!).Willski72 (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Negative criticism has to be balanced against the larger fact that although Margaret Thatcher received a lot of adverse and even hyperbolic commentary from articulate left-wing minorities (public sector, academia, unions etc) who were not among the recipients of her government's largesse, in political terms she was arguably the most successful prime minister in the twentieth century. More people today have a favourable opinion of her premiership than otherwise; according to The Times (26 April 2009): "47% think Thatcher in her prime would be better than Brown while 34% believe she would be worse. Her advantage over Cameron is even greater, with 49% saying she would be a better and 24% worse. People think she was right to cut the top rate of tax to 40% and curb unions, but say privatising gas, electricity, telecommunications and water was wrong.")


 * The quotations should be retained because they're concise and give a flavour of her populist style.


 * The article probably does need an overhaul with editors taking a more systematic, statistics-based approach. I've tried to make a start in this direction, but locating relevant figures online is difficult and time-consuming. Another major problem is that contributors keep adding political detail to this biographical article, instead of Premiership of Margaret Thatcher, where many of the controversies could be dealt with in greater depth. To discourage this tendency towards haphazard elaboration the political coverage of her three governments in this article needs to be drastically abridged and replaced with more prominent redirects, with detailed discussions of specific policies being transferred to subarticles. Lachrie (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily, Lachrie. Plenty of other political figures that have subarticles devoted to a specific point in the person's life have more general overviews of such periods in their own parent articles (as is done in this article). This is mainly because of overall readership. The overall majority of readers, when searching, search for 'Margaret Thatcher' if they want to learn more about her premiership. They don't usually search 'premiership of Margaret Thatcher'. You will see that according to the Wikipedia counter statistics, this article was viewed 154,463 times in April 2009 while Premiership of Margaret Thatcher was viewed 2,106 times in the same month. -- there is a very large difference.


 * So to give readers as much information as we can within the guidelines of WP:WEIGHT, it is perfectly alright to include detailed information about her premiership in this article. Look at Ronald Reagan -- it is a featured article and, though it has daughter articles Presidency of Ronald Reagan, Domestic policy of the Reagan administration and Foreign policy of the Reagan administration, there is still a concise, and, in some parts detailed, account of Reagan's presidency in the main article. The same can and should be done here. Happyme22 (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Additions tend to accumulate in the biographical article. Many are superfluous to an understanding of the individual herself. We should try and transfer much of the policy detail as we can to the sub-articles, while retaining introductory summaries in the subsections here. Lachrie (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If we wanted evidence of bias then we only have to look at some of the above comments. Comparing Thatcher to Brown in the current context for example, do the same thing during the height of the Poll Tax and image the response.   Saying that opposition was confined to the institutions of the articulate left who were not the recipients of her largesse at least provides some amusement.  Some of the most devastating criticism came from her own party - "selling the family silver" for example.  --Snowded (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a larger danger in emphasising opinions of special interests, because we lose perspective and can't see the wood for trees. To claim Macmillan's jibe that the government was making ends meet by 'selling the family silver' was 'devastating', without trying to measure the impact on opinion, suggests a political bias. Macmillan wasn't even criticising the policy of privatisation itself, but rather the alleged accounting habit of including the proceeds of privisation in ordinary revenue, despite the fact the government actually published both sets of figures. Lachrie (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded, she was eventually toppled by her own party stabbing her in the back. When her cabinet told her they would support her in the second ballot but they new she wouldnt win she called it 'Treachery with a smile on its face'. It was this that devestated her and made her resign, otherwise she would of continued until 1992. When were talking about bias i probably believe that 'overall Thatcher was good for the country' but it didnt change the fact that she made many mistakes (mostly towards the end of her Premiership when her party became agitated.) I repeat that Geoffrey Howe's resignation speech about 'the wickets' is a good one. One of the strange things is that what got her elected and re-elected twice ended up being her downfall, her strong will turned to stubborness. She had stood up to the NUM, the Argentinians etc but she should of seen that the 'Poll Tax' (Community Charge is its proper name) was one to make a u-turn on. Her greatest strength turned into her greatest weakness and the secret party negotiations to get rid of her were ultimately successful in that climate of discontent.Willski72 (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously, academia was almost united against her, but I don't think she enjoyed enough popular support to call her a 'populist'. She essentially polarized the nation into those who were 100% behind her, and those who were 100% against. Of course, british politics has swung right, and towards thatcher's position in recent years, given that Blair, Brown and Cameron (Blair especially) all believe in Thatcherite economics. It's actually very hard to measure popularity of a figure under Britain's 'first-past-the-post' system, as a party can win parliment without having nationwide majority (iirc). Polls give no better measure, as many polling organizations are politically motivated, and are often less blatant about their bias than the newspapers. Still, I feel if the label's under contention, a more neutral term should be adopted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.210.26 (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no question Margaret Thatcher had a popular following and had a populist style of politics. After all, one of the most famous hostile Marxist critiques of Thatcherism, by Stuart Hall, and published in 1985 in the New Left Review (151), was entitled 'Authoritarian Populism'. In point of fact, considered in electoral terms, the Thatcher governments weren’t any more divisive than Major’s or Blair’s. If we were to give equal space to opposition views regardless of actual election results, readers might end up wondering how governments ever got elected in the first place, and critiques of the FPTP system don’t belong in this article. Opinion polls are still a much better guide to public sentiment than any private judgement, and it's election results that provide political legitimacy in a democratic system. We don't want to start rewriting history in order to bury democratic outcomes. Lachrie (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

However, perhaps a less biased pool for an opinion poll could be found than Telegraph readers? I personally think a poll should be omitted, as it lends a false legitimacy to a shaky claim. I have no doubt that most polls on this subject are conducted by newspapers amongst that newspaper's readership. Therefore, you could get wildly skewed reactions that are unrepresentative of the general population. For instance, Guardian readers would probably be less positive towards Thatcher, whereas Telegraph readers would be more. It's not re-writing history to insist on considered use of sources. Those sources that are demonstrably unreliable should be treated with suspicion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.210.26 (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but these accusations of bias are false and unfair. They're based on a misconception. Polls for the Daily Telegraph are conducted by YouGov, an independent and reputable polling organisation. Labour supporters even outnumbered Conservatives among those polled. The findings were also reported in The Guardian: Voters prefer Thatcher and Blair to Brown, poll finds. Lachrie (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Its probably because the politicians (of all parties) seem to be dithering and not taking decisive action (just squablling etc). Say what you like about Thatcher but she definately didnt give the impression of dithering. During a crisis people like decisive action (even if you may think it was the wrong action), she was someone who would "get things done".Willski72 (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I've added the famous quotation from Howe and some polling data to clarify the circumstances of her resignation, to improve balance. Lachrie (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! Seems good to me, you can see the reasons for her stepping down better than previously and it is now more neutral.Willski72 (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Mr Whippy
On checking, there do seem to be sources for Mr Whippy:

BBC News Magazine: 100 things we didn't know this time last year: 'Margaret Roberts (later Thatcher) helped invent the chemical process that produces Mr Whippy ice cream.'

And from the company website: Mr Whippy through the years: 'A chemical research team in Britain (of which a young Margaret Thatcher was a member) discovered a method of doubling the amount of air in ice cream, which allowed manufacturers to use less of the actual ingredients, thereby reducing costs.'

It's a well-known brand name; perhaps the statement should be more specific, since Mr Whippy edits recur periodically. Lachrie (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Grammar
"she was said to need just four hours sleep a night": should be "four hours' sleep" (apostrophe) or "four hours of sleep". 86.174.124.26 (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the heads up! Happyme22 (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

extreme bias
I was amazed at how biased this article is. Thatcher was the most controversial figure in recent British political history and is detested by many people in the UK for the effects of her policies on social infrastructure, values and cohesion. It appears that any negative content in the article will immediately be removed by her fans. How should this problem be addressed in order to produce an objective article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiridens (talk • contribs) 08:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point, the problem is do you replace something thats biased one way with something thats biased the other? There isnt much neutral written about Thatcher, as you say she was "the most controversial figure in recent British political history". Its not as bad as it was but its still far from neutral....Willski72 (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition, this article recently went through a copyedit overhaul with the sole intent of making it "more neutral." It is currently a good article, meaning that it was determined that the article adheres to the standards of WP:NPOV. Happyme22 (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My view is that where a political figure is clearly highly controversial (I assume that few would dispute this for Thatcher), this should be made clear in the introductory part of the article, preferably in the first couple of sentences, and the opposing views briefly summarised. Something along the lines of "M.T. was.. (career details, term of office etc.)... Her ..(objective description of political ideology)... is believed by some to ...(arguments about supposed benefits of deregulation etc)... while others ...(arguments about negative influence on social cohesion and institutions). Then, as long as there are sections later on in the article describing alternative viewpoints and these are not selectively deleted by biased parties, any bias is localised and identifiable by the aware reader. Clearly if this is regarded as a "good article" then the assessment process is deficient. While I am quite new to Wikipedia and don't know the ins & outs of the assessment process, I wonder if there are geographical factors coming into play here. I can see that from an international perspective (and particularly from an American perspective as Thatcher's policies were highly influenced by U.S. right-wing political thinking) the controversial aspects of her tenure in office could be less apparent than they are within the U.K.Spiridens (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You make a fair point (im English by the way though im not sure about Happyme!) and i agree with you. Although i would suggest putting the oppossing view at the bottom instead of the top. Of course this will probably open up the arguments about it basically being a criticism section and no other politician has a criticism section(which isnt actually true) and many other arguments both ways. They are a repetitive theme on this talk page!.Willski72 (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see much merit in the suggestion. Every politician is controversial. Interest groups always have an axe to grind, but the classical socialism of the old left which Thatcher opposed and defeated has long ceased to be a mainstream perspective. Overall, the Thatcher government's approval ratings don't seem significantly different from those of other governments, and the controversy shouldn't be hyped up to the point where it overshadows the fact that Thatcher established a new political consensus which Conservatives and New Labour since have basically respected, e.g., to quote Mandelson: 'Globalisation punishes hard any country that tries to run its economy by ignoring the realities of the market or prudent public finances. In this strictly narrow sense, and in the urgent need to remove rigidities and incorporate flexibility in capital, product and labour markets, we are all Thatcherites now.' Lachrie (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

But it must be remembered that those who hate her REALLY hate her. Im talking killing an old woman on the street here! Personally i believe that she fixed something that desperately needed fixing, something that no-one else was ballsy enough to do, while of course making mistakes along the way. But there are people out there that would kill her as soon as look at her, and this must be remembered.Willski72 (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * An assassination index isn't the best barometer for controversy. Was Kennedy assassinated for being controversial? Hate culture is more a problem for criminal pathology. Politics can offer a pretext for misogyny. 'Controversial' may just be an editor's code for 'I don't like her'. A critic detecting extreme bias in the article may simply be projecting his own. An encyclopaedia shouldn't be a mirror for media hype. Lachrie (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"'Controversial' may just be an editor's code for 'I don't like her'"

Very true.... most of the time anyway!Willski72 (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Lachrie on this one. I've worked on articles of other very controversial politicians, including George W. Bush and Dick Cheney; though both are definitely among the most controversial figures of modern times, the beginning of the lead of GWB's article does not say "George W. Bush was the 43rd and controversial President of the United States" because that would be placing undue weight on perception (believe it or not, that exact line was once attempted in Ronald Reagan's article). In addition, lumping criticisms or reasons why a figure is controversial at the bottom of a BLP or biography, as suggested above, would be, in essence, a criticism section. The simple statement "Those who hate her REALLY hate her" can easily describe George W. Bush as well (with masculine pronouns, of course), but you don't see erroneous statements or statement upon statement upon statement regarding his unpopularity thrown in his article "for balance".


 * Criticisms of Margaret Thatcher need to be dispersed throughout the article so as not to throw off the balance of the content. That said, recently on this very talk page, there was a discussion regarding the overall point of view of the article, and Lachrie and Willski both took much time to add in criticisms and, in turn, balance out the article further. Unless there is something extremely important we are leaving out, I don't see a need to insert more criticisms simply because "people who hate her REALLY hate her". My best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I heartily concur. The issue of bias will continue to rear its head however for the simple reason that "those who hate her REALLY hate her", and we'll have to keep answering the same question of bias over and over. PS that thing about Ronald Reagan made me laugh so hard i nearly fell of my seat!Willski72 (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Falklands War
It has British casualties but not Argentinian. This means that the picture is not complete. I know the purpose is to be a sort of criticism of the fact that she decided to defend the Falklands but could it not just say that she came under some criticism because casualties were quite heavy? A random person who came on this page doesnt have a clue how many Argentinian casualties there were. For all they know there could have been less than a hundred and there could have been massive military blunders. Im probably being picky here but hey ho!Willski72 (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers to whoever changed it!Willski72 (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be me. You're welcome. Lachrie (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)