Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 15

Hang on
Happyme, the article is still biased, I don't think you should remove the warning about its bias yet. Look at Thatcher as Education Secretary, can you tell me that paragraph isn't the least bit skewed in the womans favour? The way its phrased and stuff? Take a look at the way its written. Sayerslle (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Also the Legacy section is egregiously rubbish, Theres a lot of POV stuff there,  who  is Claire Berlinski - ? She's just a Thatcher apologist isn't she ?,she's quoted here as if she is a respected voice.. The quote Thatcher declared 'I regret nothing' and insisted 'she was right..' how can that quote be accurate, wouldn't she have said 'I was right..' Its just sloppy, POV quotes, misquoted quotes, dubious cites from right wing apologists, it discredits the article.Sayerslle (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly a bit tired of all this. Many editors are using this "POV" as an excuse to overhaul the article and attempt fill it with left wing propaganda, degrading Thatcher and throwing the balance in the opposite direction. What we strive for is neutrality, not a shift to one side. What you said above is very telling: "She's quoted here as if she is a respected voice" -- Just because you don't respect her doesn't mean that millions of Britons, Americans, and people elsewhere across the globe share your view that she is universally unpopular and not credible.


 * I'll admit that the article needed work. But the bulk of what had to be done is now over, and the article is 100% more balanced. You continue to make these broad statements on what you want the article to look like, totally disregarding all the work that went into it by other editors and me before you even showed up here. Can you see why I am a bit upset?


 * I think you are confused as to the editing process as well. One does not state what they want to be done at the talk page then immediately go to the article and do it. If said person's edits are objected to, 1.) they must be proposed at the article talk page by the person who wants them implemented; 2.) discussed at the article talk page by a range of editors; and 3.) the consensus will decide what goes in, if anything from the original proposal. Simply because you want something added doesn't mean it is going to go in, period.


 * In addition, in regard to the lead of the article, did you gain consensus to add that Thatcher perceived the country to be in a national decline? That is worded very weasely, implying that it was only Thatcher's perception, as many editors above have brought forth cites from credible sources which state that the UK's economy was in a decline. The sentence stood as it was for a very long time and simply because you feel that the economy was on the up and up doesn't mean that we have to discredit those sources to be "NPOV" and "include both sides". If one side is far outmatched by the other, we can disregard the other. Think of it this way: there are a few people in the world that believe the earth to be flat, but science and years of research and photographs tell us otherwise. We are not going to say in the lead of the article on the Earth that "Some people consider the earth to be flat", because that is what is known as a fringe theory. The same principle applies here. Happyme22 (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article is Thatcher, so her perception of the depth of the crisis at the end of the 70s isn't irrelevant, if you could be bothered to read half a page of her foreword to the Manifesto you'd see how worried she was that if the country didn't elect her - she uses the phrase 'perhaps the last chance' to save the nation . Is the Legacy section perfect then?, even that sloppy quote that can't be right, is the legacy section free from special pleading? ..Your bias is terrifying..you talk like you're the presiding genius of the article, youre just an editor, 'I plan on going back thru the articles history and discussions and closely analyzing your edits' you wrote here, sounding like Joe McCarthy, ..My edits to the main article have been very few and minor. What's nonsense, and what I'm frankly tired of, is your delusion that  you are capable of neutrality. I don't despise Claire Berlinski I'd never heard of her, so I wondered who she was and looked her up and she's written abook apparently called 'Why Thatcher Matters' or something like that, so  any quote from her should be prefaced, with 'As the conservative  apologist Berlinski argues.., not just trying to smuggle her opinion in as if its a mainstream view. You arbitrarily removed the neutrality tag not me, you decided the discussion was over arbitrarily, do you understand the editing process?Sayerslle (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct that her perception of the 1970s decline of the economy of the United Kingdom is relevant, but the wording needs to be improved. I think you missed my point about the weasel words. As it is currently worded, "She entered 10 Downing Street determined to reverse what she perceived as a precipitate national decline," one must wonder if there truly was a national decline or whether Thatcher exploited this, or whether Thatcher was mistaken, etc. Of course there was a downturn, of course the economy was bad, as established by mulitple sources presented in the discussions above. You know that as well as I do. Thus we need to write the article as so, saying something like, "She entered 10 Downing Street determined to reverse the UK's national economic decline." You said that we need to show her views and thoughts on the matter; well, they are already presented in the sentence above with the Manifesto quote. I'm fine with the quote from the Manifesto. You convinced me on that. But I'm not fine with the sentence that follows it.


 * Who decides what is mainstream and what isn't? Are left wingers mainstream and conservatives cooks? That is what you are making it out to be. Labeling an author as an "apologist" simply because she wrote a book emphasizing the importance of Thatcher's 11 and a half years as PM is flat out craziness and is the farthest thing from NPOV. I will continue to oppose such proposals. I don't see much wrong with the legacy section. Take the following paragraph:
 * "To her supporters, Margaret Thatcher remains a revolutionary figure who revitalised Britain's economy, impacted the trade unions, and re-established the nation as a world power.[199] They contend she contributed greatly to the end of the Cold War and the fall of communism.[199] But Thatcher was also a controversial figure, in that her premiership was also marked by high unemployment and social unrest,[199] and many critics fault her economic policies for the unemployment level.[200] Speaking in Scotland in April 2009, before the 30th anniversary of her election as prime minister, Thatcher declared: 'I regret nothing,' and insisted that she was 'right to introduce the poll tax and to close loss-making industries to end the country's 'dependency culture'.'[201]"


 * What is wrong with that? Both sides are given due weight, supporters and opponents. How about the following paragraph from the section:
 * "After her resignation in 1990, a MORI poll found that 52% of Britons agreed that 'On balance she had been good for the country', while 48% disagreed.[204] In April 2008, the Daily Telegraph commissioned a YouGov poll asking whom Britons regarded as the greatest post-World War II prime minister; Thatcher came in first, receiving 34% of the vote, while Winston Churchill ranked second with 15%.[205][206][207]"


 * Those are the facts. There is nothing you can do to change them. I don't see any problems.


 * Your claims that I am clueless when it comes to neutrality are baffling and laughable. I've worked on articles of some of the most important figures of the 20th century, including Ronald Reagan, Nancy Reagan, Pat Nixon, Richard Nixon, George W. Bush, Laura Bush, Dick Cheney, and the ever important Iran-Contra affair. The first three I listed are featured articles, and the rest are good articles. So please don't insult me and claim that I am mindless about Wikipedia policy when I in fact know quite a bit, enough to be nominated and confirmed as a Wikipedia administrator.


 * The discussion had been moot for roughly a week. We didn't hear a peep out of you or me or hardly anything from other editors about POV issues. Thus I removed the tag, and the minute I did you jumped on it, reinserting it and demanding that more changes be made. So many beneficial changes have been made to the article over the last month, so many important changes showing different sides of the Thatcher years. I don't see anything wrong with the legacy section, I see the introductory quote as a perfectly acceptable summarization of Thatcher's economic policy and basic beliefs. Period. Happyme22 (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just think there's no hurry to remove the tag, there are still problems of bias I feel, it kind of takes her being for freedom, less state control etc..too much at her own evaluation, theres no mention of class much really..if no-one comments on the talk page for a week or two that doesn't mean everythings sorted, thats my opinion anyhow. One bizarre sentence that isn't important but is just bonkers I think is this in the bit when she was education secretary "she gave priority to academic needs in schools..' and then theres a reference for that.Is that to help the people who might have thought her priority was to see  the school discos were well run ? what is the point of a sentence like that? isn't it 'subject, the bleedin obvious'.? All the important figures you've worked on dont cover a very wide political spectrum do they? kind of cover the political alphabet from a to b. And like they say we start to resemble our pets maybe youve started  unconsciously to take on the politics of your pet subjects. Or you chose people you have an affinity with/ Nixon, Bush, Thatcher, Nancy, Cheney, blimey...Everyone has bias, thats whats good about wikipedia that many voices contend, have their say and move onSayerslle (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The tag should not have been removed under any circumstances, as the dispute has not been resolved in any way. If Happyme22 is so keen to resolve the dispute, then how about actually making the article more neutral? Where are all these mythical improvements that have made the article more neutral? There's the list of examples from one month ago, what has been done? Northern Ireland section - nothing done. Falklands section - nothing done. 1983 election section - nothing done. Trade unions section - expansion of miner's strike information, but now contains vague facts, misrepresentation of source material, and I still don't consider the information to be a neutral overview of the strike in general, more one designed to push a particular violent slant on the events. Cold War section - little done, crucial reaction to the Libya bombing is still being omitted, the addition of a mere opinion poll doesn't tell the story at all. Resignation section - nothing done. Lead and legacy sections - nothing done. So what's the plan here, fob complaints off, do nothing, then remove the tag and think the problem has gone away? Not likely! I've been extremely generous in not taking this to GAR to date, but since you obviously don't intend to fix the problems with this article it's more than past time this embarrassment of an article was delisted so I'll write up its death warrant later. 2 lines of K  303  13:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it should not be removed until the NPOV and OWN issues are sorted out.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Happyme i suggest you just let them do whatever they want with it, then when they've finished see what they've got and change back anything thats biased the other way. I know it will make you mad but you're going to get worn down anyway, at least this way if they make a total mess of it (which im sure they wont) you get to gloat at them. It saves lots of argument and hassle on both sides.--Willski72 (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is to try and make the article more credible not to make it left-wing biased instead of right wing biased . I agree that 'the sourcing in the article is sub-par' 'brief BBC reports CNN profiles' etc..,I think there are too many opinion polls too.. Michael White wrote that as of Feb 2009 more than 150 books have been written about Thatcher and her years in power. Sayerslle (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Time to point out the elephant in the room
Well it seems like an elephant to me, but nobody else seems to have noticed it. Apparently Lachrie's edits are "truly spectacular" according to Happyme22. Admittedly the edit I really want to point out most of all falls outside the "last month" window, but bears closer examination.

Down to business: Sayerslle points out that a quote attributed to Thatcher reading "she was right" cannot possibly be right. Happyme22, with his blinkers on ignores that rather valid point and goes off on a rant. Not satisifed with having his "this article must be neutral, it's a good article" argument discredited, he's now waving his admin badge and a list of articles improved as evidence that this article is neutral. It isn't, deal with it. Admins have no special status in content disputes they are involved in, and whatever work you've done on other articles is of no relevance to whether this article is neutral or not. But back to Sayerslle's point, how can that quote possibly be accurate? It can't be, so rather than ignore the point and rant away on irrelevant tangets let's do some digging shall we?

The following sentence was added in this edit by Lachrie:

"Speaking in Scotland in April 2009, before the 30th anniversary of her election as prime minister, Thatcher declared: 'I regret nothing,' and insisted 'she was right to introduce the poll tax and to close loss-making industries to end the country's 'dependency culture'"

According to the cite ("Thatcher: I did right by Scots; Thatcher: I regret nothing" Sunday Times (26 April 2009), p. 1") there may be two stories that source this but I'm not buying that. Why would the Sunday Times have two stories in the same edition covering the exact same thing, when Thatcher isn't exactly two story material these days? This is backed up by the Times website, where only the first story appears, and I can find no trace of another story with the "regret nothing" quote. So given the unlikelihood of two virtually identical stories on Thatcher appearing in the same edition and only one story appearing on the site, it's reasonable to accept that there's only one story you'll agree? Now let's examine the problems with the sentence added when compared to the source:
 * The source is ambiguous as to whether Thatcher was actually speaking in Scotland. By my reading of the story (particularly if you read it in full), she's "defending her record in Scotland", not "in Scotland defending her record".
 * The quote "I regret nothing" that has been attributed to Thatcher appears nowhere in the source.
 * The quote "she was right to introduce the poll tax and to close loss-making industries to end the country’s “dependency culture”" that has been attributed to Thatcher is actually the words of the Times. Had it been "in the words of the Sunday Times she declared etc etc" it would work, but as it is it doesn't. The words "Thatcher declared" followed by two quotes says to the reader that those were Thatcher's exact words, when they don't seem to be.
 * The alleged quotes are being used out of context. The quotes are specific to her policies in Scotland, yet this article does not make this in any way clear, and implies she's talking about the whole country.
 * As seems usual for this article, sources are being used rather selectively. The source is being used only for Thatcher giving her version of events, while ignoring any negative information in the same source. The source notes that the poll tax contributed to the collapse of the Tory party in Scotland, yet we only have Thatcher's assertion that she was right and anything negative is left out?! Same with the "thousands of job losses and the decline of many communities" that the source mentions. The source also notes she is a hate figure in Scotland, so in addition to republicans in Ireland (Richard English - Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA, pp. 207–208, ISBN 0-330-49388-4), coal mining communities (New Statesmen article in a now archived section) she's also a hate figure in Scotland, she seems to be hated by a significant number of people according to reliable sources yet this material is absent from the article? And to summarise in relation to this specific edit: as this cited source covers her negative track record with regards to Scotland then gives Thatcher right of reply by including her version of events, then it's an egregious breach of NPOV to ignore the negative track record and only include alleged quotes from Thatcher about how great she is!

In addition to that there's the claim that David Jones died from being crushed by a lorry. Not only is that claim not in the source cited, but it's a poorly researched addition considering his cause of death varies from source to source and is actually disputed. Then there was the "Marxist leadership" claim attached to a quote that wasn't present in the source, which has since been removed. Then there's Scargill's intentions that he made no secret of, and things went strangely quiet when a quote from the source was asked for didn't they? If you're reading as I'm sure you are, how about actually providing the quote? I could go through more edits and find many similar problems, considering his posturing on this talk page I view his editing as a joke! "Lazy editorialising is the bane of Wikipedia" says Lachrie. Was your editing lazy, or is your editing in violation of policy deliberate? If there's anyone that this (since removed) comment of "closely analyzing your edits" applies to, then it's Lachrie! Or is Happyme22 unwilling to closely scrutinise the work of editors on his side in a content dispute? 2 lines of K 303  13:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That sentence should be changed by Lachrie to make it clear that those aren't direct quotes from Thatcher, he probably liked the memorable, Edith Piaf-esque defiance that the 'regrette rien' gave to his heroine's, invented, words. Where is that quote from the Toronto paper? I don't believe Happyme is even-handed in his scrutinising. Sayerslle (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sadly when I make substantive points and include that a certain editor tends to ignore points and go off on rants, that editor responds by ignoring my substantive points and ranting. What a joke this place has become.... 2 lines of K  303  12:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Full Title
Anybody able to give her full title with all the honorifics in the longest form? 71.156.42.43 (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Falklands Section
The falklands section has a very strong, unsourced POV littered with weasel words. Just take the first sentence: (") From the moment it came to power Margaret Thatcher's government had set out to make friends with South American tyrannies, especially in Chile and Argentina. The first victims of her policy had been political prisoners in these countries. (") Thanks for looking at this! 99.138.95.13 (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Resignation statement - persons
''The Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Margaret Thatcher, F.R.S., has informed the Queen that she does not intend to contest the second ballot of the election for leadership of the Conservative Party and intends to resign as Prime Minister as soon as a new leader of the Conservative Party has been elected... Having consulted widely among my colleagues, I have concluded that the unity of the Party and the prospects of victory in a General Election would be better served if I stood down to enable Cabinet colleagues to enter the ballot for the leadership. I should like to thank all those in Cabinet and outside who have given me such dedicated support.''


 * Why did it start out in the third person, then switch to the first person? --  JackofOz (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I fixed that, quotes were missing. I should however point out that the chronology there is misleading - that she spoke to the Queen should appear before the statement, so I'll move that too. Parrot of Doom 09:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The Thatcher revolution and today's world
How can I add an external link? Hello All, I'd like to add Robert Skidelsky's article "Anatomy of Thatcherism" to the external links. It is a very interesting article. But I don't have access to the "Edit protected" article. Please read the article and give me some feedback on this page.

Interesting.... and not party political either way which is hard to find. He uses a lot of his own opinion but im sure he is an expert economist.... Its fine with me and i will support this going in, however i cant do it myself!--Willski72 (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This should be added, if at all, to Thatcherism, not here. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm Debresser makes a fair point, it would probably be better on Thatcherism than on this.--Willski72 (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Historical revisionism - where is the Single European Act?
It looks like the hagiography extends to elliding anything where Mrs T increased Britain's integration into the EU, so we only have her Bruges speech. The Single European Act was a very important development, she got a load of flak about it from her back benches, but she did it anyway. Where is it??? --Red King (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher
The Falklands conflict was not solely due to M Thatcher but due to governments during the 1970s both conservative & labour talking to Argentina about the transition of ownership thus the 1980s Argentinain government thought that it's british counter part would allow them to take the land, this goes against the British sense of fair play & annoyed the Iron Lady who was forced into showing her metal. The loss of Jobs in the 1980s was due to vast overmanning in public companies & the following of the Kieth Jospeph priniples of small government. In the coal industry there was huge amounts of manpower doing very little, for a company to make profit you cannot have machinary or labour being idle. To llustrate this in Staffordshire there is a pit town called Huntington the pit was closed in the 1990s all the workforce continue to recieve hundereds of pounds each year even after thier retirement age in lieu of coal so in effect the british taxpayer is paying for free heating for millions of ex-miners, just one of the benefits that the coal industry was having to pay for. For the record I am an ex-Labour councillor & was part of the London poll tax riots in 1990, so I am no supporter of Mrs T   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.66.176.73 (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Why doesnt it say anything about how she used Scotland as test pigs. Or how she was the reason 10 brave men died. She was the reason for so may men losing their jobs, she was the reason for a pointless war in the Falklands, she denied the freedom of a people. It doesnt mention this stuff in the way it should, but in a way of supporting Thatcher.....I will dance on her grave! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mocktheweekisfunny (talk • contribs) 21:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * that is all your opinion and as i have been told, if you have one wikipedia does not recognise it i'm afraid(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC))

Nonetheless he does have an indirect point this page is VERY soft on Thatcher see her legacy section for details —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.155.47 (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Cultural Depictions…
I’m very surprised to see that the only two cited depictions of Maggie are from this century, and neither is pivotal IMHO; surely the single most significant depiction of her was the puppet on “Spitting Image”, voiced by Steve Nallon (who also played her in “The New Statesman”)? It was certainly the most recognized portrayal, and interesting from the depiction of the dynamics of her cabinet; it also is interesting from the point that it probably did as much to strengthen her position as undermine it.Jock123 (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe the puppet did do as much to strengthen her position as undermine it but the puppet was still less than 100% flattering to Thatcher, so highlighting the puppets existence would go against the pro-Thatcher editorial policy of the article, do you see? Sayerslle (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Very funny Sayerselle, perhaps making it a prominent link and giving it a brief mention in the article would be possible. It was after all extremely amusing and also played a large role in how she was depicted in the publics mind. However there is no space for an in-depth analysis.Willski72 (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved Issues
I have reverted the removal of the neutrality tag as there are still issues that need to get dealt with namely these Archive 15 and Addressing some of the issues in the article and the talk page discussions and also Ridiculously biased article BigDunc  16:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * These seem to have been dealt with at the time—ie, deemed insubstantial. The article is reliably referenced from neutral academic sources, from top to bottom. Has been through a community based peer view, etc. That some people more favourably disposed to fringe worldviews such as republicanism or Trotskyism, occasionally show up to write out a long essay on the talk, wringing their fists, moaning about "miners", Bobby Sands, trade unions or whatever else, doesn't really seem enough to keep a tag at the top for all eternity. Especially as these people never hang around to actually help improve this article for their pet views. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If, as you allege, the points raised were "deemed insubstantial" then you should be able to provide a diff or diffs where there is consensus that each point was deemed so? Some of us know economical with the truth you are, and simply alleging something doesn't cut much ice round here. Other than the people responsible for this hagiography, the overwhelming majority of editors who replied agreed that the article had substantial problems. "neutral academic sources", that's a good one! Tertiary sources, CNN profiles, local papers and suchlike all feature heavily, while the many actual academic works that have been written about Maggie are barely cited at all. The tag will remain until the article is neutral, if you wish to see it removed I suggest you improve the article. I see it as much for the benefit of the reader to warn them that the article is not a neutral article, not just for the benefit of editors. 2 lines of K  303  14:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME FOLKS! This article is about one of the most controversial and influential politicians of the last 200 years. The neutrality of her bio is GOING to be all over the place no matter how much we discuss this one. I am removing the tag and reminding everyone that there are some things, and people, in life that are simply controversial. That is the way it is. If we discuss every little thing, such as has come up in this section, the issues are NEVER going to be resolved. Can we please get over it? If there are factual inaccuracies, that is a different matter and should be corrected, but to say that Margaret Thatcher might be controversial is like saying that Bill Clinton might look at women who are not his wife. Themoodyblue (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that Themoodyblue has a good point here. This argument is really a chicken and the egg one, in that it will never be agreed upon. Even a "consensus" will have the slimmest of majorities with much opposition from the large minority. As such it may be best to, rather than have a big warning box, instead make it known near the beginning of the article that she is a very controversial figure and that there is a wide range of disagreement on EVERY issue. In the meantime actual factual inaccuracies could be rooted out.Willski72 (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Themoodyblue's argument is self-defeating. Anyone reading this article would not get the impression that she is "one of the most controversial and influential politicians of the last 200 years", thus proving its lack of neutrality and justifying the continued inclusion of the template. A template which I hasten to add says "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved", and as the dispute has not been resolved it stays. Articles about controversial subject are the ones most likely to attract NPOV disputes, so the idea that a NPOV dispute cannot be initiated on a controversial article is a ludicrous one. If, assuming this dispute is ever resolved by the points I have raised being dealt with, at some point in the future another editor chooses to write up a rationale as to why they do not think the article is neutral then it can be dealt with at that time. But, the notion that an article may attract a NPOV dispute at some point in the future justifies sweeping the current NPOV dispute under the rug and saying it is solved is also ludicrous. 2 lines of K  303  15:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)