Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 21

Media Depictions
This section does not seem to be on the same high level as the rest of the Thatcher article. The list of Thatcher depictions appears arbitrary and incomplete.

The second para, more than half this section, is about the work of one writer, John Wells, which seems disproportionate, to put it mildly. The short 3rd para is just one sentence.


 * Depictions of Margaret Thatcher have featured in a number of television programmes, documentaries, films and plays; she was played by Patricia Hodge in Ian Curteis's long unproduced The Falklands Play (2002) and Lindsay Duncan in Margaret (2009). She was portrayed by Andrea Riseborough in the TV film The Long Walk to Finchley. Thatcher will be played by Meryl Streep in the 2011 film The Iron Lady.[234]
 * Thatcher was lampooned by satirist John Wells in several media. Wells collaborated with Richard Ingrams on the spoof "Dear Bill" letters which ran as a column in Private Eye magazine, were published in book form, and were then adapted into a West End stage revue as Anyone for Denis?, starring Wells as Denis Thatcher. The stage show was followed by a 1982 TV special directed by Dick Clement.[235] In 1979, Wells was commissioned by comedy producer Martin Lewis to write and perform on a comedy record album titled Iron Lady: The Coming Of The Leader on which Thatcher was portrayed by comedienne and noted Thatcher impersonator Janet Brown. The album consisted of skits and songs satirising Thatcher's rise to power.
 * In Spitting Image, Thatcher was portrayed as a bullying tyrant, wearing trousers, and ridiculing her own ministers.

There is a more comprehensive, more coherent list in the article Cultural depictions of Margaret Thatcher. I think there could be an argument to replace the (imho) unsatisfactory section in the Thatcher article with:

I haven't edited this article before, so I wanted to sound out regular editors of Margaret Thatcher about their opinion. The list of songs in Cultural depictions of Margaret Thatcher is also more comprehensive than the limited list in this article. Mick gold (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to removing this section, but the article would have to be improved by adding references to establish verifiability. At the moment that article is just an enormous and indiscriminate list without any references at all. So, improve the cultural depictions article and would support this. --John (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. Currently, I don't have time to undertake a comprehensive Verifiability run on the Cultural depictions. At some point I'll try to improve the Media depictions in this article, it's irritatingly sub the standard of the rest of the article. Mick gold (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Legacy Section
To whoever wrote the legacy section, I think a note should be made along the lines of..'Let no good deed go unpunished' (see socialism/unions) when describing Thatchers amazing transformation of Britain.Twobells (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

1944
As far as milk is concerned, this article does not agree with Education Act 1944. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.248.127 (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

'Privatisation' comments by Marxist Andrew Glyn
Andrew Glyn, a Marxian economist, believed that the "productivity miracle" observed in British industry under Thatcher was achieved not so much by increasing the overall productivity of labour as by reducing workforces and increasing unemployment.

Why was this included? It makes absolutely no sense in the section, how does reducing workforces and increasing unemployment increase productivity in those same industries exponentially?Twobells (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Glyn's idea is theoretically plausible (employment is the denominator to productivity; if the least productive members of the workforce are laid off, productivity goes up), but he is factually wrong, as employment increased dramatically during that period. Moreover, and this is far more important for the purpose of Wikipedia, his view is a fringe view and its inclusion is not reflective of the balance of opinions in reliable sources.  Indeed, it is not even supported by a reliable third-party source, as the reference is to... Glyn (1992).  Per WP:NPOV, it should thus not be included, and per WP:BLP, it should be deleted immediately. Bastin 09:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The whole economic section is very very left wing biased. More information concerning the monetary improvments are needed. The cherry-picked factoids do not reflect the econmomic improvement that occured. Why aren't there quotes from Friedman? If you're going to put some obscure marxists quote in, everyone should have a quote entered. He is one of the least athoritative people to opine on Thatcher. A better person would be the one who founded monetary policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.220.66.20 (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is white-washed
One of the most controversial topics regarding Margaret Thatcher and her cabinet is the unofficial support many of her close associates (especially Bernard Ingham), and possibly she herself, gave to the apartheid regime in South Africa, including support for the South African army's illegal incursions into neighboring countries. Yet South Africa isn't even mentioned once in this article. Are latter-day Thatcher-supporters attempting to silence the less savoury aspects of this lady's career? 82.176.209.52 (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No its not whitewashed - this article recently passed a WP:GA status. If you want to add something you think will improve it then why not present something a bit more specific with WP:RS reliable sources to support it, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of this is in Premiership of Margaret Thatcher. This article could do with a mention of SA though. Myrvin (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added something. Myrvin (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This, Orwelllian, whitewashed history of British imperialism, written by a bunch of lowlife monarchists who abound on Wikipedia, is typical. Fortunately, Wikipedia cannot stop the collapse of Britain. Btw, you can see Thatchers support of apartheid mentioned on French Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.3.235 (talk) 05:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As Rob says above, everyone can contribute. You just need strong sources, as ever. I would add that just because the article is GA doesn't mean there aren't absences and oversights and certainly doesn't mean it can't be improved. So, read the guidelines and feel free. Span (talk) 07:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at Premiership of Margaret Thatcher too. Myrvin (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As someone who lived through the Thatcherist epoch in the U.K. I completely agree that this article is a despicable whitewash. It also illustrates very well the problems inherent in the Wikipedia model. I am not even going to attempt to edit the article, because I am sure that anything I could add has been added before and deleted on multiple occasions. The problem is that there is always going to be an element of subjectivity about what constitutes a worthy source, and more importantly a view of "balance" that is strongly coloured by whatever the majority opinion of hard-core Wikipedia power-users happens to be. As these are mostly North Americans coming from a society in which unfettered free market economics is the norm and to whom Thatcher has always been presented in a positive light by their own media, there is always going to be a pro-Thatcherite bias in the determination of what constitutes a balanced article.Spiridens (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Apartheid
I oppose the addition of "Thatcher opposed sanctions against the apartheid regime of South Africa, because she believed they would not speed the achievement of non-racial democracy nor help the position of the blacks in that country" because:
 * It isn't in the source provided
 * I don't like the language; especially with a professional politician, we shouldn't be talking about what someone thought. We really only have her own words and what other people thought they meant, and nobody can read her mind and find out what she really thought. Other opinions? --John (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

WRT the first point, what interpretation do you put on the source? Mr Stephen (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is "From the outset Mrs Thatcher made it clear that she did not believe that the economic and political isolation of South Africa would either speed the process of achieving a non-racial democracy or help the position of Blacks in South Africa. She consistently stated that she believed that the way to reform was to provide the South African government with incentives to change" Mr Stephen (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, I just found the passage in the source. We can't just copy the source either though. Let's try and find a version that is neither plagiarism nor original research. --John (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a bit close, I agree. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I missed this little discussion about my words because I was sidetracked by John's comments on my User page. If you look back, you'll see that, originally, I had the actual quote. A quote shows that this is someone's view about what was the case. John doesn't like quotes but prefers a paraphrase. Now he dislikes the paraphrase. I don't know who John's "we" encompasses: there are quotes everywhere in Wikipedia, and I don't see what is wrong with them. Paraphrases are capable of being criticized as false versions of the actual view. Is there really a Wiki rule about not having quotes? I vote to bring back the quote. If John doesn't like what is being said about Mrs T, he can find a quote that says she did believe that sanctions would improve the lot of the blacks in SA. I think he'll be hard pressed to find one. Myrvin (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not voting, we're discussing how to make the article better. As a secondary source we keep quotes to a minimum. I'm not arguing for a moment that Thatcher argued for sanctions, obviously she didn't do that. But a fair summary of what happened just has Thatcher opposing sanctions, and it's a good addition at that level. We don't need a long quote here. On this top-level article we don't need that level of detail. There might be room on the Premiership article for that. I remember Young Conservatives in the 1980s wearing "Hang Mandela" badges, so I am not understating the truth of this statement, just trying to put it in proportion with the rest of the article. --John (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not just "Thatcher opposed sanctions against the apartheid regime of South Africa, preferring instead a policy of influence through incentives." Kaldari (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you find a citation that says that more directly thanthe source? Myrvin (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think readers would find a bare statement like "she opposed sanctions" without some reason why, rather anodyne and something of a cop out. The rest of the article isn't like that. It has "She held that few children would suffer if schools were charged for milk", and "based on their mutual distrust of communism", and "Thatcher's preference for defence ties with the US". All of these give reasons for milk-snatching and relations with the US. There is also a nice long quote about the Russians. You are pleading a special case for apartheid. As I have said, it was very important, so there should be more not less. It was a shame not to have been in the article in the first place. Furthermore. I don't think what it says at the moment is actually to be found in the source. The source says that the visit of Botha was a "concrete result" of her belief and aim to keep up contacts with SA, not just because she opposed sanctions/ Myrvin (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We seem to be getting nowhere with my original source, so I've tried using Campbell. I have also said rather more about this serious policy. It now balances more with the size of the subject in the Premiership article. Myrvin (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure whether it was here who said that. But I recall something in that regard that she "didn't see any merits in sanctions against a country that had to have walls and border patrols to keep the supposedly oppressed people out." In the era of Verwoerd and afterwards millions of Blacks migrated to South Africa and Thatcher would have known that. I just don't find a source for that right now --41.151.10.15 (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 December 2011
Please change "Thatcher will be played by Meryl Streep in the 2011 film The Iron Lady (film)" by Thatcher is played by ....

since the movie is already screening.

122.57.245.193 (talk) 06:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * , thanks. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Couple of suggestions
1. The word "for" should be deleted from the following sentence:


 * "In the 2001 general election Thatcher supported the Conservative general election campaign, but did not endorse Iain Duncan Smith as she had done for John Major and William Hague."

2. In the following sentence, the word "impacted" seems nondescript and evasive, like it was a compromise committee decision. Could we find a more decisive word?


 * "To her supporters, Margaret Thatcher remains a figure who revitalised Britain's economy, impacted the trade unions, and re-established the nation as a world power"

3. Is there any reason why the word "dementia" is not included anywhere in the article? Sadly, I believe that is her condition, is it not? 86.176.210.14 (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Regards, 86.176.210.14 (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 January 2012
She arrived at Oxford in 1943 and graduated in 1947 with Second Class Honours in the four-year Chemistry Bachelor of Science degree

She arrived at Oxford in 1943 and graduated in 1947 with Second Class Honours in Chemistry in the four-year Bachelor of Arts degree [the Bachelor of Science is not awarded by Oxford University as a first degree; this has more recently been superseded by the degree of Master of Chemistry (MChem)].

Mannersmakythman (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What's your source? --John (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌, needs a source-- Jac 16888 Talk 15:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit requests since 21 January 2012
The year of birth of Denis Thatcher is 1915 i/o 1951

222.124.199.10 (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅; thank you for spotting the error, the year has been fixed. Shuipzv3 (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The year indicated was the year Margaret Thatcher and Denis Thstcher got married, not Denis Thatcher's birth year. Shuipzv3 (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Under "Later years", it currently reads: "Thatcher returned to the backbenches as MP for Finchley..." The abbreviation should not be used here, but rather the exact title: Member of Parliament (MP).

Edit request - the only female prime minister
The article says "The first female British prime minister and the longest-serving of the 20th century..." Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "The only female British prime minister and the longest-serving of the 20th century..." ?

--122.163.1.136 (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Alzheimers
A taboo word in a whitewashed article, one presumes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.209.12 (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess so!  Gandydancer (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not the Wikipedia article that is whitewashed - it is our world which refuses to talk about difficult topics. Please find notable sources that say Margaret Thatcher suffers alzheimers, and I am sure it will be added to Wikipedia. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Dementia
Why doesn't this article mention her struggle with dementia? Here are some articles:
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7579352.stm
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/2614020/Margaret-Thatchers-mental-decline-revealed-by-her-daughter.html
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/25/margaret-thatcher-sufferi_n_121133.html
 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086941/Margaret-Thatcher-dementia-The-Iron-Lady-didnt-know-David-Cameron-was.html --Sofffie7 (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't mention it because this whole article is little more than an apologia for Thatcher, and mentioning her dementia would be too "unflattering" of dear, sainted Margaret. It's fairly sickening, actually. RyokoMocha (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added a reference and some text to the article that refers to Thatcher's daughter's revelation that her mother suffers from Alzheimer. Disease is nothing to be ashamed of imo. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The reference you added is a film review (here). Find a better reference. My understanding is that that dementia and Alzheimer's Disease are not the same thing – but I will certainly give way to an expert on the matter.  Mr Stephen (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Margaret Thatcher is suffering from Alzheimer's. WWGB (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have added your reference and a couple more to the article. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We have to be careful with WP:BLPs. WWGB's article (Margaret Thatcher is suffering from Alzheimer's) is the only one of the three that actually says it. The opening paragraph is LONDON — So now it is official: like her late friend and comrade in arms Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher is suffering from Alzheimer's. According to her daughter Carol, dementia was first diagnosed eight years ago and the former prime minister's condition has been deteriorating gradually ever since.  Except Carol Thatcher's book does not say that Thatcher senior has Alzheimer's.  Dementia yes, but not Alzheimer's. Perhaps Carol gave interviews around the time of the book's publication that expanded a little? In which case, bring them on.


 * There seems to be a push on Ottawahitech's part to label people with diseases: he has labeled Muhammad Ali as a sufferer of Parkinson's Disease despite our article citing a ref that quotes one of his doctors I know for a fact that he does not have Parkinson's disease; he also labeled Robin Morgan as suffering from Alzheimer's even though there is no mention of it in our article. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Chemist vs Pharmacist
The article makes it perfectly clear that her degree was in chemistry, not pharmacy, which has always been my understanding. Therefore the statement in the second paragraph: "Originally a chemist (pharmacist)" is plainly wrong. Pharmacists are commonly called chemists in the UK, but that is a misnomer and the reverse is certainly not correct and is never used. The bracketed word should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharmagiles (talk • contribs) 21:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I wrongly thought the article was protected and have now made the change, presuming it should not be controversial. Pharmagiles (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well spotted, good move. She was a chemist, not a pharmacist. --John (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Problematic paragraph
I've pulled this, as it seems to have problems as a use of the source:

First of all, the wording is very close to the source, http://www.economist.com/node/13570177 - to the possible point of counting as a close paraphrase, which is bad. Secondly, there are major issues of fact from the changes.

1. "Thatcherism remains a potent byword in British political parlance" - I'm not quite sure the article justifies this, but that's arguably alright. The article is more about Thatcher's legacy than the concept of Thatcherism, which are slightly different things.

2. "defining policies in post-Thatcherite terms," - this is part of a very close paraphrase, the change was "New Labour" to "policies". But that's the problem - New Labour is a political party, "policies" are something completely different.

3. It cuts out key information that challenges the view being presented. For instance, "Paradoxically, when David Cameron and his small group of modernisers seized control of the Tory party just over three years ago, they believed that weaning it from its infatuation with some of Thatcherism’s harsher themes was a necessary condition of electoral revival." and "Mr Brown is eager to contrast his activism in mitigating the worst effects of the downturn with the brutal indifference of the Thatcher government during the recession of 1980-82." - It's highly misleading to quote only the bits praising Thatcher, and leave out the negative material, particularly as it gives a misleading view of the political leaders' opinions of her to present only the positive half.

4. I'm not sure how much the quote adds here. Is the legacy section devoted to anything anyone says in praise of Thatcher, no matter how relevant? 86.** IP (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll ignore the snarky conclusion there (4) and just deal with the substance of your suggestions. If the writing is too close to the source it is perfectly ok to rewrite it or paraphrase it. If the selection of what to quote seems too one-sided it is perfectly ok to include more negative material from the same quote. I believe it is an excellent source and it would be a shame not to use it. --John (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree the source is fine, it's just this specific use of it that's problematic. However, while I may have been blunt about the quote, I do think that a Prime Minister saying nice things about a former PM of the same party just after having dinner with her is... incredibly trivial; barring a couple more sources showing that the quote has ongoing validity, I can't view it as worth including in an overview. But I just pulled out some other text, so had best write that up. 86.** IP (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Keay quote
Pulled this here for discussion. {{quotebox| Thatcher remarked to the reporter Douglas Keay, for Woman's Own magazine in September 1987:

{{quote|I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand "I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or "I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations. }}

As it stands, I have nothing against this quote. But it was in the Legacy section, which... well...

...It's nothing to do with her legacy, surely? Perhaps we could put it into the section on her premiership, as it seems to be a very good precis of her views on social welfare and such. Add a small amount of context and analysis, and it'd be great. 86.** IP (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It could perhaps be relocated but it seems to me it is a crucial part of her legacy; such words would have been unthinkable before she uttered them, but instantly became defining parts of what she was known for and redefined the political spectrum in Britain. I am open to discussion (preferably not just between us two) about this but I have restored the quote meantime. --John (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see your point, but it desperately needs a little sourced analysis; I don't think you can just put up a quote from someone. By the way, to be clear, I think once we contextualise that quote, the Legacy section's pretty much sorted. 86.** IP (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I found a good source which discusses this. --John (talk) 07:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Harv errors
Using User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js, I found some Harv errors: I suspect most of these problems overlap, but I thought I would point them out.  Clay  Clay  Clay  20:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Footnotes: Refs 1, 31, 39, 45, 52, 141, 227 do not point to a full reference.
 * Bibliography: Chin 2009, Thatcher 1997, Erickson 2005, Foley 2002, Glyn 1992, Jones 1999, Kavanagh 1997, Lacey 2003, Toye & Gottlieb 2005, Williams 1998 do not have footnotes pointing to them.
 * I think I fixed them. What does the script say now?  Mr Stephen (talk) 22:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 141 still doesn't point, for some reason (it looks right...); changing 229 to harv style would eliminate the problem with Chin 2009. Suggest you search in the footnotes for the uncited entries in the bibliography.  Clay  Clay  Clay  23:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 141 needed 'ref=harv' Mr Stephen (talk) 23:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Chin might not be needed much longer, but I have changed it. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC) PS I can live with the unused refs (others may disagree).
 * Okay, that is fine, all the errors I saw were fixed. If nobody cares about the unused refs being there, they can stay, I just thought to bring it up.  Clay  Clay  Clay  00:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Help 1 March
Spelling of "privitisation" -- should be "privatization" or "privatisation"
 * ✅ Thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone for Dennis
I've just seen that with this edit User John has reinstated clearly off-topic information that centres around the subject's husband, and hence clearly belongs in Dennis Thatcher's article. As there appears to be no justification for this whatsoever I am going to remove it again. Jprw (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't see how you can think that. Political satire using a third person as the observer is hardly uncommon, but doesn't make them the target any more than the various satirical diaries of powerful people's pets are really about the pets. 86.** IP (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am with 86.** IP here. It is only clear to you that this is off-topic information. Everybody else thinks it is relevant to Thatcher. For the third time I counsel you to wait for a new consensus to form before removing material from this article. The current consensus definitely supports retaining this material. --John (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Presumably it was precisely consensuses of this sort that caused the article to degrade from FA to GA to its current sorry state. Jprw (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice snark, Jprw. Here's a thought experiment for you. Would the Private Eye and other media have run this material for years if Denis Thatcher had not been married to "the leaderene"? So, do you really think this satire was principally focused on him, or do you think it was mainly aimed at his famous wife? --John (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You are utterly wrong. Have you ever read a "Dear Bill" letter from Private Eye? The focus is very much on him, i.e. Dennis's views, his mannerisms, peccadilloes, his coterie (not including his wife, only rarely and in passing) and the person he is writing to. The material belongs in the DT article, therefore, and not here; according to your logic, her daughter's appearance in I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here! should be included as well. Do you understand now? Jprw (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Pop Culture References
In the forward to the tradeback copy of V for Vendetta (circa 2007), Alan Moore admits his view of a dystopian dictatorship is/was partially shaped by the failings and inequities of Thatcher's England, ending it with the phrase, "England isn't a nice place to ben anymore." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freethegoats (talk • contribs) 06:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this is referenced in the V for Vendetta wiki article: The political climate of Britain in the early 1980s also influenced the work,[4] with Moore positing that Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government would "obviously lose the 1983 elections", and that an incoming Michael Foot-led Labour government, committed to complete nuclear disarmament, would allow the United Kingdom to escape relatively unscathed after a limited nuclear war. However, Moore felt that fascists would quickly subvert a post-holocaust Britain.

Exact quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freethegoats (talk • contribs) 06:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that is relevant to the V for vendetta article but not to this one. --John (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there's probably not enough direct connection, since the chain is something like Thatcher->Thatcher's premiership->1980s British culture->Dystopian future based on Moore's opinions of where that culture is going. If there's documented direct Thatcher references in V for Vendetta (I haven't read it), that might be worth mentioning, but being inspired by what was then contemporary culture isn't really direct enough. 86.** IP (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hillsdale College statue
Is this sufficiently notable to include? 86.** IP (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not that keen on it myself. I would be happy to remove it, but I would like to see other views too. --John (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is notable in the WP sense. I can't find any non-trivial independent coverage of it.  Mr Stephen (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed it per this discussion. Could we also remove "Other awards include Dame Grand Cross of the Croatian Grand Order of King Dmitar Zvonimir" on similar grounds? --John (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It MIGHT be alright, if moved to the section discussing her actions in Croatia. 86.** IP (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable cruft?
I can't see how the following adds anything whatsoever to the article.

It's just something she went to. People go to parties. She went to one. Nothing of any use is added to the article by mentioning it here - I suppose it might be useful in Liam Fox's article, if she and/or Cameron said anything about him, but I can't see it as relevant here, particularly with such a pointless quote. 86.** IP (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't see how it adds anything either, so get rid of it. Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ... I just did. Malleus Fatuorum 15:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism
I do not see a section of criticisms of Thatcher on either this page or the Premiership of Margaret Thatcher although there are people claiming the articles are biased against her. In order for the article to be impartial it should include opposing viewpoints, in their own section if required. (Drn8 (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC))


 * I have seen it expressed elsewhere, and I am very much of the same opinion, that single-purpose "criticism" and "praise" sections are a bad idea. It's much better to work the reactions, positive and negative, into the main text of the article at the appropriate points. 86.176.210.14 (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticism sections are just opinion and it doesn't belong on wikipedia.Hillstead22 (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Restoring contentious / fringe / off-topic / material
With this edit user John restored material which I had removed. He also left the comment on my talk page ''I am disappointed that you again removed material which is referenced to reliable sources and which was agreed by consensus. Could you please wait for a new consensus to form before removing it again?''. It seems that the "referenced to reliable sources" comment here is a bit of a smokescreen, as the material is problematic, for a number of reasons. As for "agreed by consensus", I am surprised by this, since basic WP:BLP principles seem to have been violated. These are the parts I removed, and why I did so:

I invite editors to specifically address the individual points that I make above. As a general comment, it seems that the material above is in violation of basic WP tenets and that there are clear grounds for it not to be included in the article. And I wonder whether one of the reasons the article was demoted from FA / GA status was that inferior material like this was added? Jprw (talk) 06:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thatcher began to attend lunches regularly at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), a think tank founded by the poultry magnate Antony Fisher, a disciple of Friedrich von Hayek. I changed this to: Thatcher began to attend lunches regularly at the Institute of Economic Affairs, a think tank founded by Antony Fisher. Since the rest appears to be unnecessary detail (the reader can surely find out more by clicking on the links)
 * I removed the Clive James reference because it is concerned with a physical aspect of Thatcher, is trivial and gossipy, and pejorative. It also looks incongruous in an encyclopedic entry about a major historical figure where the reader might expect to find weightier material of greater import. I suggest that all that is necessary re: her presentation / change in voice is: ''Thatcher worked on her presentation under the advice of Gordon Reece, who was recommended a voice coach by Laurence Olivier (also removing all the weasly "met by chance" type language)
 * I changed Thatcher reacted to this by branding the Labour government as "chickens", and Liberal Party leader David Steel joined in, criticising Labour for "running scared" to: Thatcher reacted to this by branding the Labour government as "chickens". Why on earth do we need to know what David Steele thought about this issue?
 * I removed: Her stance on immigration was perceived as part of a rising racist public discourse, which professor Martin Barker called "new racism". This is probably the most serious of the lot: This is a fringe view (from an individual who does not have his own WP article and seems to be some obscure Marxist academic) is being given undue weight, and via a sly process of synthesis dangerously misrepresents the subject as being some kind of neo-rascist. So I would suggest that for WP: WEIGHT, WP: FRINGE, WP: SYNTHESIS, and WP:BLP reasons it has to go.
 * I disagree with everything you say above. Let's see what others think. Meantime could you stop removing material you don't like until you can generate a new consensus? --John (talk) 08:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with everything you say above -- it would have been nice to hear your reasons (to take one example, could you specifically state why David Steele's opinion on the above issue, which you have reinstated twice, needs to be in this article?). I'm surprised indeed that you can't see the above material as being at least a bit problematic. Usually in cases like this an editor's antipathy towards the subject is preventing them from being able to assess information objectively and rationally. You also invoke WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather cheaply and quite unfairly, instead of addressing the serious issues I raise regarding relevance, weight, WP: FRINGE, WP: SYNTHESIS, and WP:BLP. Jprw (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you may have a point with the David Steel bit (though it only takes a few words, and I don't see anything inherently wrong with providing a little more context for Thatcher's actions, since it was, in the end, part of a three-party dispute).
 * However, her accent seems to have been fairly notable at the time - for instance, looking at contemporary satires the third part of The True Confessions of Adrian Albert Mole is a supposed diary of Thatcher as a child, with a huge chunk of the satire having to do with Margaret's attempts to lose her accent. (Speaking of which, shouldn't that be in the cultural references? It's certainly more mainstream than statues in some random minor American college.) Perhaps more to the point, [This is a Guardian article reproduced at University College London]- "For post-war grammar-school boys and girls, accent had other meanings. For Harold Wilson it was the appropriate possession of the meritocrat. Traditionally ambitious grammar-school pupils would try to escape their localities, and therefore their accents. Most famous is Mrs Thatcher, whose elocution lessons are usually mentioned condescendingly or mockingly. It does seem reasonable to satirise her later speech-training when already prime minister. At the behest of her PR adviser Gordon Reece, she worked away to remove perceived stridency from her voice. Her childhood elocution training, however, would have been standard for many grammar-school pupils with ambitious parents - the equivalent of music lessons." and later "Though not mentioned in her autobiography, the clever Grantham girl's grocer father forked out for elocution lessons - decades later yet more lessons were needed." - I think a case can be made that this is a notable part of Thatcher's life.
 * As for the racism bit; well, we have an article on the term, New racism, which references this book by Chin, which describes the work of Martin Barker favourably, with some expansions and useful clarification. Perhaps we could work this source in? There's also a couple other sources I found in a very quick search:
 * The Guardian (explicitly calls her behaviour [in a specific instance] racist)
 * The New Statesman (implication; probably not useful as a source as it seems to view it as common knowledge)
 * ...and I'm sure that if five minutes' search found those, much more could be found. In particular, there's a Time article http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,948011,00.html - that looks like it may well be a fantastic source, but it's behind a paywall. If someone has Time at their library, I'd like to see it.
 * So, yeah, I think that beefing up the sources would be better. I think the ones I provided will be a good start. 86.** IP (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Checked a little more. Forgive me if these links don't work. All quotes are approximate, since I cannot copy paste, and expect you to check the source.


 * The Rise of New Labour: Party Policies and Voter Choices - Page 58 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-lYmlK-oesoC&pg=PA58&dq=Margaret+Thatcher+racism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hopPT5u-JI7D8QOYk73wBQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Margaret%20Thatcher%20racism&f=false "some writers have seen signs of racism in Thatcher's language... particularly when she talked about being "swamped" by immigrants"... however, the Conservative party has generally distanced self from overt racism."
 * Racism, the City and the State, page 140 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=25XDeOjKjdYC&pg=PA140&dq=Margaret+Thatcher+racism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hopPT5u-JI7D8QOYk73wBQ&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Margaret%20Thatcher%20racism&f=false - two long paragraphs, basically, Thatcher's views on immigration encouraged racism by portraying national identity as under attack.
 * Racism after 'race relations', pp. 75-76 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IgUAdOIFudUC&pg=PA75&dq=Margaret+Thatcher+racism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hopPT5u-JI7D8QOYk73wBQ&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Margaret%20Thatcher%20racism&f=false - I'd rather not try to summarise this one; it's a somewhat complicated argument about Thatcher's views on national identity and immigration, the Falklands, and other issues.


 * Now, obviously, these are searches for "Margaret Thatcher racism". This may well give a biased selection of results, so I'd encourage looking at any mainstream, neutral biographies you have to see how they treat her views on national identity and immigration; if they treat it vastly differently, we need to find balancing sources. However, put bluntly, I'm finding tons and tons of sources on these lines. Perhaps the sensible thing is to just have a small section on her views on immigration and national identity, and deal with it in the nuanced detail of these sources, instead of just bluntly referencing New racism without explaining. Overspill can go into New racism most likely. 86.** IP (talk)

All the links you adduce above are extremely tenuous and are a classic example of synthesis. It is very dangerous indeed and a clear violation of WP:BLP to smear subjects like this. You can probably also find plenty of other sources (fringe / far left) out there that pander to the equally false but equally damaging canard that she is a fascist. The reference to "New Racism" stems solely from this which seems to be an opinion that has been put forward by one Marxist academic (who doesn't have his own WP article) 30 years ago. I repeat: for reasons of WP: WEIGHT, WP: FRINGE, WP: SYNTHESIS, and WP:BLP this cannot be included; only someone with an antipathy towards the subject would wish to include it. Jprw (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Seriously? Multiple scholarly books discuss it, but you claim it's tenuous? Did your read the pages of books linked? 86.** IP (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did read them, and you appear to not understand what synthesis means. It seems that your antipathy towards the subject (as evidenced, for example, by this edit) is causing you to not be able to appraise information objectively. Jprw (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can only presume you're trolling at this point, and will not respond further. Any reasonable person, without a<n agenda, who read those sources would say that explicit discussions of Thatcher, immigration, and racism are usable to discuss it in the article. 86.** IP (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll ignore the bizarre "trolling" accusation and repeat: you appear to not understand what synthesis means. Jprw (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's explicitly stated in plain language in some of the sources. It's not synth to accuratelty summarise what multiple sources say. I can only presume you haven't botheredd to read them, or are trolling. Indeed, you even admit it's an accurate depiction of Barker's views, I pointed out sourcess discussing Barker's and similar views, and suggested a more nuanced approach, you instead make a bizarre - and false - accusation of synthesis. I don't think you have anything useful to add to this discussion. 86.** IP (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your grasp of these concepts seems to be a bit shaky, so unfortunately I'm going to have to spell it out for you. Here is the WP definition of synthesis: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. What you want to do with the above sources would be a classic (almost textbook) case of synthesis, as the inference (both potentially libellous and misrepresentative, by the way) is only speculated to / alluded to or not explicitly stated. You seem to be more interested in slinging Internet slang insults around than in engaging in rationale debate. The standard of discourse on this page is disappointing, and of course the generally shoddy standards being upheld by editors (I'll refrain from the farcical use of the word "Consensus" which User "John" loves to hide behind so much) are of course being reflected in the article itself. Jprw (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You clearly have not read the sources; they do explicitly make the conclusion in the article (that Barker called it "new racism"), and make further points that can be used to expand and clarify the consensus on that position. Even Campbell's relatively restrained quote still talks about her being prejudiced against foreigners. If you want to take all these sources, and make a fair, balanced explanation of the various views, that would be fine. You instead want to exclude material which all sources offer some insight into, based, not on any proposed clarification on your part, nor based on anyone's proposal, but because you don't like what the sources say. Therefore, there is no point engaging with you, you are not trying to debate in good faith. Hell, '''there cannot be Synth when I've, so far, only put up sources we can use to revise the text and asked for others; noone has yet proposed the revisions, because you're occupying all our time apparently using psychic powers to guess at what might emerge from this discussion. 86.** IP (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not making any kind of sense. But as for Barker, that is a fringe / obscure view. Here is the first line of the WP policy on FRINGE: Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article about a fringe theory should not make it appear more notable than it is. Again, it cannot be included, and another basic WP tenet is being violated. I suggest that you try and concentrate on making the discussion revolve around how the material may or may not be in violation of WP tenets – then we might start getting somewhere. Of course, your insistence on including material as problematic as this is evidence of your antipathy towards the subject. Perhaps you should do the honourable thing and recuse yourself, as otherwise you are bound to muddy the waters with problematical POV editing. Jprw (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We have two sources quoting Barker's ideas at the moment. Things aren't Fringe just because you say so; you need to recuse, you are the only person arguing for the views you espouse. 07:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We have two sources quoting Barker's ideas at the moment You are doing exactly what user John did earlier – failing to grasp that issues related to WP: WEIGHT, WP: FRINGE, WP: SYNTHESIS, and WP:BLP outweigh WP:RS in this instance. Both of you, this self-styled "consensus" have also consistently failed to deal during this "debate" with how the material which I flag above does not violate WP: WEIGHT, WP: FRINGE, WP: SYNTHESIS, and WP:BLP, etc. Jprw (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No editor is Moses. This discussion is a good example of editors talking past each other with policies getting in the way of mutual understanding rather than helping to improve the article. Geometry guy 20:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * JPRW, I think that it was not John who violated principles of the wikipedia but it was you. You removed essential material without first seeking a consensus, that's what John complained about and he's right. You can't simply delete material because you personally don't like it, which seems to be your main reason to do so. You claim that the material you deleted came from an "obscure Marxist academic". That sounds more of a smokescreen, much more so, than John's request to first discuss those deletions. Your arguments sound to me as if you are deftly right wing and somewhat intolerant to any other views. It's your right to be a Tory of course but please DO let other people think differntly! --Krawunsel (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

My political allegiances are irrelevant. All my objections are based on the fact that the above material is in clear violation of basic WP tenets. Jprw (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sure there is a compromise to be reached if we can discuss civilly here. You are right that our political allegiances should be irrelevant. --John (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A good place to start would be to try to avoid language of the playground such as "nice snark" and try to explain (coolly, rationally, and thoroughly), how the material I flag above is not either off-topic or in violation of WP: WEIGHT, WP: FRINGE, WP: SYNTHESIS, and WP:BLP. Jprw (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

John Campbell's biographies of Thatcher are well thought of. Bits of them are viewable at google books. On racism, we can do worse than start with Campbells words (here): "In fact Mrs Thatcher was remarkably free of race prejudice. She was no more prejudiced against Africans than she was against Germans, Greeks, Italians and others who had the misfortune not to be British: her approach to South Africa was based far more on politics than on colour. She had always thought apartheid ‘irrational and bad economics’…" etc. Mr Stephen (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There we are. A well-respected biography of the subject goes out of its way to state that racist leanings in MT were conspicuously absent; nevertheless, editors insist that a tenuous (and potentially libellous) reference from an obscure Marxist academic can be included. And users accuse me of having an agenda! If this is the standard of debate here and these are the opinions being pushed then I am left with no choice but to put a POV banner up. Jprw (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And several other sources making various claims, two of which back Barker's interpretation. 86.** IP (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Very, very, tenuous; overall this is a non-issue and related material should not be included in the article. Jprw (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think, with all due respect JPRW, that you are in a minority of one at the moment. That's usually an indication that your interpretation is out of step with consensus. --John (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * JPRW makes a good point, but derogative statements from opponents like "racist" need to be left out of this article. The entire Legacy section is just filled with pure opinionated banter from her supporters and opponents. This is an opinion article plain and simple.Hillstead22 (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In your opinion, perhaps. But your opinion isn't worth spit unless you have reliable sources to back it up. Which of course you don't. Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

GA status
Just to note, with the recent revisions, I'm fine with this returning to GA status. I had my concerns (and was not happy with the reassessment being framed as an attack on me) but I think that it's only fair to state that the problems are fixable, and further problems can easily be discussed. 86.** IP (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside for one moment your rather paranoid-sounding claim, I think that it would undermine WP GA standards for this article to be given GA status. There are real concerns re: POV, WEIGHT, FRINGE, and LEAD. It also needs a copy edit to remove numerous instances of off-topic material and weasley language (I have tried to do this on three occasions, but User John has reinstated the material, without providing specific reasons for doing so when asked). For details re: all these issues (apart from LEAD, basically, her post-PM career / life needs summarising in a couple of sentences, with the last one being something along the lines of "Thatcher suffered a stroke in 2003 and due to continued ill health has maintained a limited public profile in recent years"), see above. Jprw (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You have been unable to get anyone to agree with you on those opinions. (And, as an aside, it's not paranoid: Malleus explictly attacks me at the start of the GAR). 86.** IP (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You have been unable to get anyone to agree with you on those opinions – which only illustrates the risible level of debate that we have had here: I am only pointing out the obvious and the facts speak for themselves. Jprw (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you feel that way. You might want to reread WP:CONSENSUS and WP:COMMON before continuing down this line of argument. What is self-evident to one person may not be to another, hence the need to make joint decisions, especially on controversial topics. On a more productive note, did you say you had some sort of criticism of the lead paragraph? If you've detailed that then I have missed it. If you can say what you think the problem is, I promise to read it with an open mind. --John (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Socialism and this article
I've noticed that certain right-wing editors of this article have stated that socialism is a fringe ideology - when in fact it's one of the core beliefs of the political Left!. That's a big problem with articles like this - supporters of her ideology police the article and keep the other side of the debate to a minimum. Paul Austin (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Liberalism is center left. Socialism is left and in totality when you include the center and right it is a fringe ideology. There are few communist countries, no democratic socialist countries and low memberships for both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.195.139 (talk) 14:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Because America doesn't allow any of them to last. Yugoslavia was a democratic socialist country. By the way, Liberalism is centre, Convervatism is centre-right and Democratic Socialism is centre-left. Communism is left-wing and Nationalism is right-wing. Timurv1234 (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 March 2012
is a British politician and the longest-serving (1979–1990) British prime minister of the 20th century; as of 2012 "Please change [as of 2012]for "." Technically, and practically, the 20th Century ended in 2000 (or 2001), and as of 2012 we are in the 21st Century. Hence she will remain the longest serving Prime Minister of the UK of the 20th Century."

Ubiquitous2 (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. FurrySings (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you could both reread the sentence it should be really clear that the "as of 2012" relates to the female prime minister bit and not the longest-serving PM. Open to suggestions on how to reword this to prevent anyone else becoming confused as you two seemingly have. --John (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually just took it out; I'm not a great fan of "as of 2012" as I think it makes the article look too much like a news report and lacks dignity. If another woman is appointed PM we can always change it.  --John (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Remove or redo the legacy section?
Reading this article you can see a epic fight between people who love her and loathe her but we need to stay away from opinions altogether and let the reader decide for themselves how they feel about her.

The Legacy section we get a lot of excerpts from novels or articles that were overly critical of her or praise the hell out of her because her legacy is kind of an opinionated question to answer...thoughts?Hillstead22 (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We need to cover how she is seen by all shades of opinion, which we do in every other article; that Thatcher arouses such strong and diverse feelings in some is part of her legacy. Malleus Fatuorum 02:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't a newspaper article, this is an encyclopedia though which is meant to display the facts instead of opinions. Legacy is relative based on who is telling the story. Everyone is going to have strong feelings about people and places but that doesn't mean it needs to be in wikipedia.Not to mention you will get too many supporters or those that strongly hate her and you'll get a biased sense of that person.Hillstead22 (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What specific suggestions are you making? What sources are you proposing for them? --John (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Opinions are facts, so long as they're attributed and presented as opinions. Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hong Kong
Thatcher was one of the key figures who negotiated with Deng Xiaoping over the future of Hong Kong. This piece of history formed an important part of her foreign policy with East Asia but not a word is mentioned in the article.--219.79.10.105 (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is a nice reference. Anybody fancy a hack at this? I agree it is an omission. --John (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Iron Lady
Thatcher was originally dubbed 'Iron Lady' by the Soviets, but people who lived through the Thatcher years know that the nickname 'Iron Lady' stuck, not for her anti-Soviet attitude, but for her tough Conservative politics, her union busting, the way she steamrolled over her opponents, and her uncompromising style. Fighting and winning the Falklands war probably had something to do with it as well. If the only reason she was called Iron Lady was her anti-Soviet attitude, the nickname would have been long forgotten by now. Anyone who doubts what I say, please look at google news for 'Thatcher iron lady' for the years when she was Prime Minister. She was called Iron Lady for her uncompromising politics. FurrySings (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you're absolutely right and that the way this term is used in the lead is therefore inaccurate. Jprw (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. What the lead says – "She earned the nickname 'Iron Lady' for her uncompromising opposition to socialist policies" – is factually correct, cited to a reliable source, and not at all at odds with the personal opinion expressed by FurrySings. Malleus Fatuorum 18:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes but it's not only in relation to socialist policies – the Falklands, Irish terrorism, the EU, etc. The nickname came to reflect her tough stance in general and the wording should reflect this. Jprw (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources? --John (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If she got the name from the Soviets, and then it stuck, it'd probably be worth mentioning that if we have a source. Any other reasons why it stuck are speculation. 86.** IP (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm getting more than a bit fed up with this. Your personal opinions and reflections aren't worth spit; what we need here are reliable sources, not yet more of your bewildered meanderings. Malleus Fatuorum 19:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The lead of the article is supposed to summarise the body, rather than being a POV fork. WP:LEAD states, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."  The body of the article says: On 19 January 1976 Thatcher made a speech in Kensington Town Hall in which she made a scathing attack on the Soviet Union: ... In response, the Soviet Defence Ministry newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star) gave her the nickname "Iron Lady".  So, the body is saying that the Iron Lady nickname arose from this diplomatic conflict with the Soviet Union and we should not be giving an alternative explanation in the lead. Warden (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with the Warden. If the nickname first appeared in a Soviet journal in January 1976 it can hardly have been earned for her dismantling of "socialist" policies when in power post-1979. --John (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously the body of the article needs to be changed. Do you really think she was called 'iron lady' as prime minister for some derogatory remarks about the USSR she had made years before she became the prime minister? FurrySings (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The article makes it very clear where the nickname came from. So your "obviously" is obviously bollocks. Malleus Fatuorum 16:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What is bollocks is your arguing to keep something you can't possibly believe to be true. You want to stand up and make an oath that you honestly believe that she was called Iron Lady during her tenure as prime minister for some anti-soviet comments she made years before? That is bollocks. FurrySings (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Krasnaya Zvezda gave her the nickname in 1976, therefore it can have nothing to do with what she did during her term as prime minister. If you want to make a case that the reason the nickname stuck was because of her attitude towards socialist policies then that's what you need to produce sources for. Malleus Fatuorum 14:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This article 'Margaret Thatcher: Britain's Iron Lady' attributes her nickname Iron Lady to "dismantling the socialist policies of the Labour Party". I'll find some more sources, but obviously, the reason why she was called Iron Lady is something that needs to be fixed in the article. FurrySings (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

New York Times - March 23, 2002 : "whose tough and unshakable views earned her the nickname the Iron Lady,"

"Iron Lady earned her title through an unmatched record of determination and uncommon strength" 

"Thatcher's hard-driving style earned her the nickname 'Iron Lady'"

The Pittsburgh Press - Nov 20, 1985, page A2 : "earned the name 'Iron Lady' for her uncompromising approach to politics".

"Thatcher, dubbed the Iron Lady for her uncompromising leadership style"

"Baroness Thatcher, dubbed the Iron Lady for her uncompromising style of political leadership, was Britain's first and so far only female prime minister" 

"nicknamed "the Iron Lady" for her uncompromising style,"

"still admire the uncompromising leadership style of the 'Iron Lady'."

"Thatcher, dubbed the Iron Lady for her uncompromising leadership style,"

FurrySings (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Very well, I suggest we include both; something like "She was called the "Iron Lady" by the Soviets,[1] a nickname which later became associated with her uncompromising style of leadership.[2]" Would it also be worth finding sources for and including that she was personally very proud of the name? --John (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked at all of these sources, but the ones I have looked at are either just plain wrong or not saying what you think they are. What's needed is a reliable source that says why the nickname stuck, not why, when and who gave it to her, that's already covered. Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The New York Times says: "A renowned workaholic whose tough and unshakable views earned her the nickname the Iron Lady". The Pittsburgh Press says: "... has earned the name 'Iron Lady' for her uncompromising approach to politics". It doesn't get clearer than that. FurrySings (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What's very clear from the chronology is that they're both wrong. But what you've added to the article seems like a reasonable compromise. Hopefully we can now move on to more important matters. Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Tears?
When Thatcher stood down, according to Andrew Marr, she shed tears.I think this is a reliable source. Is there any other source that says the contrary? --John (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Campbell has "only with difficulty holding back the tears". Mr Stephen (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thatcher herself has "Crawfie wiped a trace of mascara off my cheek, evidence of a tear which I had been unable to check" (this refers to a few minutes earlier, obviously). Mr Stephen (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

POV problems
This article consistently downplays criticism of Thatcher, to the point of only giving a paragraph to the community charge which caused rioting, and was one of the big forces in ending her premiereship. There's lots of other examples, for instance, in "Legacy" there's a paragraph beginning "To her supporters". The views of her detractors are left out. It also has some odd anglocentricism - The word "Scotland" is only mentioned twice and the hatred she generated by putting her community charge into Scotland a year before England/Wales isn't mentioned.

This article appears to be something of a whitewash. 86.** IP (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which reliable sources do you propose to use to improve the article? --John (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? This entire article was unbelievably negative about her. You obviously dislike her, and opinion should be left out of this article. Quoting opinions from her supporters and opponents need to be pushed out and just a timeline of events need to stay.--Hillstead22 (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that no mention is made of her being the most hated Prime Minister of all time in the UK. In fact if you come up to Scotland, uttering her name is practically akin to swearing. She is one of the main reasons that the Tory party have been all but wiped out in Scotland. (More Giant Pandas and Polar Bears in Scotland than Tory MP's)86.14.187.220 (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Lance Tyrell
 * Do you have a reliable source claiming that she's the the most hated Prime Minister of all time? The article already points out that "During her premiership Thatcher had the second-lowest average approval rating, at 40 percent, of any post-war Prime Minister", which seems to suggest that at best she was only the second-most hated Prime Minister since the Second World War, not of all time. Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Most hated PM of all time", lol. More left-wing bile which is nothing but opinionated garbage. Most people I talk to see uttering Gordon Brown or Tony Blair's name to swearing but I am not putting it in Wikipedia. Margaret Thatcher was divisive like all PMs and had her haters but also and still does have many admirers, myself for one. Just because you don't like her (and your reasons for that are not something I will discuss here as this is not a chat forum) doesn't mean this is the place for such opinionated comments. In fact a poll by Yougov the other day slated Gordon Brown as doing much more damage to the country than any other PM including Maggie. This article is completely not the place for such rubbish. Christian1985 (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"Rolls Royce of right-wing hate figures"
A writer in yesterday's Irish Times described the endearing Mrs Thatcher thus: "More than two decades have passed since Margaret Thatcher’s defenestration, but she remains the Rolls Royce of right-wing hate figures." What a great summary of this individual! 93.107.25.121 (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is an op-ed piece and wouldn't help us here on this article. --John (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Restoration of problematic material in article
With this edit user John restored a slew of problematic material which I had removed. The reason it is problematic seems to be fairly obvious:


 * The Clive James quote is 1) in too much detail 2) too trivial and 3) inappropriate as it makes fun of a physical characteristic.
 * There are numerous examples of off-topic information (do we really need biographical details about Anthony Fisher, where Olivier founf the voice coach, and what David Steele also thought about an issue?) Why reinstate this?
 * Unsourced, negative, fringe assertions that sail very close to the wind of POV pushing, in particular this: Critics have regretted Thatcher's influence in the abandonment of full employment, poverty reduction and a consensual civility as bedrock policy objectives. Many recent biographers have been critical of aspects of the Thatcher years and Michael White, writing in New Statesman in February 2009, challenged the view that her reforms had brought a net benefit. Despite being Britain's first woman Prime Minister, some critics contend Thatcher did "little to advance the political cause of women", either within her party or the government, and some British feminists regarded her as "an enemy". Her stance on immigration was perceived as part of a rising racist public discourse, which professor Martin Barker called "new racism".

I think there are clear reasons why such information should not be included in the article. Jprw (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah no, it indicates the effort she put in to make herself more 'presentable' (in the recorded media sense). Mr Stephen (talk) 08:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Clive James quote per se is not essential but the effort she put into her elocution is highly noteworthy. Rewording this might be acceptable but wholesale removal will not be. --John (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

20:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC) I just watched the movie "The Iron Lady" and decided to look her up. I get the sense movie producers are going to wikipedia and selecting movies that may reflect or propogate what they want the people to see at this time in the theater. For having interest in my own freedom and economic opportunity in a city,county,state or country I can see how she was a controversial figure despite the progress of having a woman in parliment. There is a significant similiarity to her politics and America, deregulation, concerned about the governments being broke and increasing taxes, but no tax incentives for private companies, the poll tax is a shallow means to support a government and not the public. Oddly enough she was serving the public, but had felt she knew best regardless of what the public wanted (demostrations speak loudly) or her fellow collegues). You can't lead a team when you are not a team player. The best person to ask what is needed in improving the economy of a country or having a thriving economy is a honest, hard working business owner who is supplying a legitimate service or product with competition and who accepts a reasonable profit.  Not the person who has a monopoly, not the thief who has a store front and sells illegal products behind it, not the person who deals in the black market, not the person who is unregulated cuts safety measures to make an extra buck to put in his own pocket. Not the person who price gouges the consumer and has a monopoly on a product or a service. I can think of a lot of industries today that are like this. Regulation should be used for accountablility and the safety of the consumer. It shouldn't be a burden to either. How odd a war would increase the productivity of an economy. It typically hamstrings it. I was a tourist there during a 34,000 people demonstration against her and Ronald Reagon. Now I know why! This article has a significant amount of reference which does not reflect her politics and associations with the US and the Reagon adminstration and Bush Administration, which is also the decline of this country all public entities, education, banks, health, insurance, utilities, housing, private land ownership, deregulation, home ruled cities, counties and states, discrimination and racisim the byproduct of conservatism, gasoline prices, the horrific prices of the automobile industry and associated taxes of owning and operating an automobile, poor or no high technology of public transportation and most of all terrorism.70.59.203.101 (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks for your great contribution...? 75.73.114.111 (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Why in fact is the part titled "Legacy" 50% critical (with Thatcher's main defence provided by her own quote)? Shouldn't legacy normally be more like 80% positive and 20% critical? People, generally speaking, leave a legacy because of the fact that they acheived something. For example "She has been criticised as being divisive and for promoting greed and selfishness" is not a legacy. It's just what someone criticised about her. Fletchgqc (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Where did you get the idea of any kind of "normal" split from? And why do you harbour the strange idea that achievements have to be positive? I very much doubt that many would agree with your implicit assertion that one of Thatcher's legacies was not a more selfish and self-centred society. Malleus Fatuorum 15:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Styles and Titles
Why in the section 'Styles and Titles' is she listed as being called Mrs Margaret Thatcher (1951-59)? As a married woman, she would properly be titled 'Mrs Denis Thatcher' - a minor point, which I am sure that Mrs Thatcher as a conservative and a traditionalist would wish to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.105.121.186 (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * How charmingly quaint. Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Here's an example of the usage in Margaret Thatcher: A Portrait of the Iron Lady. Warden (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be more correct, in terms of traditional etiquette, to refer to her as "Margaret, Mrs Thatcher" if we don't want to use "Mrs Denis Thatcher". However, in modern-day usage, for married women who prefer to be called "Mrs" rather than "Ms", the form "Mrs Margaret Thatcher" is common enough even if the woman is still married and not widowed or divorced, except perhaps on envelopes containing formal invitations or letters from Buckingham Palace. Ondewelle (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Why the censorship?
This article is curiously silent about her present state of mind. While correctly categorized in Category:People with dementia, discussion of her condition is limited to a single mention of it in a sentiment attributed to her daughter, buried in the middle of a paragraph, and it's totally unclear if it's connected to the account of her collapse in the sentence preceding.

Why is this so glossed over? 192.91.171.42 (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Because to say more would be too intrusive and not really encyclopedic? Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? Her policies were an obvious indication of what was to come later.CapsicumChinense (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would be unencyclopedic to mention it in a biographical article if it's verifiable in reliable sources. It doesn't need comprehensive coverage, and it certainly needs to be presented in a neutral manner (i.e., implying it affected her policy making as Capsicum suggests is probably not inappropriate). This isn't an article about a person's claims to notability, this is an article about a notable person. BigNate37(T) 21:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Her present state of mind is already mentioned in the article, in the Since 2003 section. Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm. That mention seemed rather oblique to me, but on second read I suppose it's the whole point of that little paragraph, and so there is little concern that the mention is tangential and subject to removal at a whim. BigNate37(T) 21:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect and inappropriate photo
Hi,

I am new to wikipedia so please bear with me if this is not the correct place to discuss this. I appear the a photo towards the bottom of this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lady_Thatcher_at_dinner_2008_crop.jpg) and I would really like the photo to be removed or replaced by another. First, the caption reads "Thatcher surrounded by Young Conservatives" and I am not and have never been a Conservative. I was actually at the event to help out my friend's parents and didn't realise it was a Conservative event prior to turning up. Second, I am actually looking for a job in progressive politics and this may really impede my efforts. Third, I never consented to my photo being used in this way. I realise that you cannot totally manage the way that your image is used on the internet but I would really like this to be rectified. The photo does not actually add any great substance to the article so perhaps a different photo from the same Author could be used instead. I checked and there are some that are just as good. I would obviously change it myself if I could but the article is semi-protected.

Can someone please advise me about the best way to proceed? Ogwikitem (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So you were wearing a Wandsworth Conservatives sash, but you didn't realise that it was a Conservative event? What the fuck did you think it was? Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Malleus Fatuorum do you have to show your unpleasant nature through the use of unnecessary foul language. You're not clever and you impress few. Caesar&#39;s Daddy (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * At least I'm not a gullible idiot like you. Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Could I get all editors to take a fresh look at the new version of WP:CIVIL, please? --Pete (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it any less childish than the old one? Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually said I didn't realise until I arrived, and once I was there it would have been pretty rude and petulant to leave. I obviously wouldn't put myself in that situation now and couldn't have foreseen that it would end up on Thatcher's wikipedia page. Anyway, the information is wrong and I presume it should be rectified. Like I said, I'm new to wikipedia so I'd just like to see what can be done about it.Ogwikitem (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So having realised what the event was, why did you don a Wandsworth Conservatives sash and allow yourself to be photographed with Margaret Thatcher? In what way is the information wrong? Were you not there? Were you not wearing that sash? Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You could try raising this matter on the picture talkpage here. However i am unsure if there is anything that can be done, had you been a conservative and changed your mind and now become a liberal, the image would still be accurate. The fact that the sash says conservatives does back up the description. However the description of the picture on this article could be changed to the description of the photo on its file page which is "Lady Thatcher at a conservative dinner in London, UK."  The picture certainly does not need to be removed, but depending on how others feel the rewording to be in line with the original description the image was uploaded with might be a compromise. But im certainly not convinced the change is needed, BritishWatcher (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, so I suppose the series of events are quite implausible, and I could just be lying about the "not being a Conservative" thing. The whole situation was pretty awkward and with hindsight I should have acted differently. But I was young and didn't want to be rude or rock the boat. However, the caption makes a factual claim about Thatcher being surrounded by young Conservatives. Now, being a Young Conservative requires membership and I'm sure that the fact I was not a young Conservative can be verified by checking some records. That would be much more accurate than inferring from the photo, especially given that I am now saying that I was (and am) not. Like I said, I'm not clued up on how these things work and I wanted to check on here to see what, if anything, can be done. I'm happy to compromise and I really don't wan't annoy anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogwikitem (talk • contribs) 22:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have changed the caption to reflect the description of the image when it was initially uploaded. So it now is more accurate and does not state that everyone in the image is a conservative. With the caption now changed, im not entirely sure what else can be done. I see no justification for removing the picture all together. However it might be worth asking at Help desk on if there is a way for you to request the image be deleted due to you being in it. But apart from that, i dont know what else to suggest. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I would like to see the picture removed from the article. Not for ogwikitem's sake, but for Lady Thatcher's dignity. Just above it there is a picture of her aged 80, among leading politicians, so we don't need another of her, aged 82, surrounded by anonymous teenagers. Maproom (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whilst i dont think removal is necessary i wont oppose it being removed if it is to try and improve the article and helps resolve this matter. ogwikitem can then take up the matter of it the image should be deleted fully from wikipedia elsewhere if they want. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I support its removal. It doesn't really add anything to the article and I'm inclined towards granting Ogwikitem's perfectly reasonable request if possible. — Jon C.  ॐ  09:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I support removal, both per Maproom's rationale and per Ogwikitem's plea. As Ogwikitem is afraid of potential real world consequences, and there is no compelling reasons to include this particular photograph, I see no reason to keep it in the article. Effectively I already removed it, as there seems to be consensus in favor of this action. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being so reasonable and fair-minded. This is my first time engaging with the wikipedia community and, although the fact that there seems to be no single authority is quite disorientating at first, the fact that things like this can be sorted in a reasonable way by ordinary people is really quite impressive (in fact, it has certain parallels with Mrs. Thatcher's ideology - but that is a subject for an essay). I actually contacted the Author of the photo as part of my enquiries and he has made the photo private and changed its licence conditions. Does this make any difference to whether or not it should be on wikipedia at all? Ogwikitem (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As a purely technical point, no, once intellectual property is released under a certain set of terms, that set of terms may not be revoked (excepting the special case where those terms include a clause regarding expiration of rights). Again though, that's a purely technical point. I have no interest in seeing the image re-added. BigNate37(T) 19:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I support the removal. Given the existence of other fine pictures, this one wasn't crucial.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Remove. It adds little to nothing. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

'Is' a politician...
I maybe misunderstanding (or not be fully aware of her current position within british politics), but i didn't think she was active anymore?

the first sentence reads Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS, née Roberts (born 13 October 1925) is a British politician and the longest-serving (1979–1990) British prime minister of the 20th century, and the only woman ever to have held the post

shouldnt it be:

Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS, née Roberts (born 13 October 1925) was a British politician and is the longest-serving (1979–1990) British prime minister of the 20th century, and the only woman ever to have held the post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calumk (talk • contribs) 23:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As a life peer she's entitled to a seat in the House of Lords, so she's still a politician. Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah thank-you for clarifying :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calumk (talk • contribs) 22:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The House of Lords is not occupied by politicians alone, so the correct text should be "was" a politician. CapsicumChinense (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How are you defining "politician"? Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As something other than being a member of the House of Lords...CapsicumChinense (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then your definition is incorrect. Malleus Fatuorum 20:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)