Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 27

Additional material and quotes continued
User:Martinevans123, if anyone wants to start discussing an agenda then the first person to question is you. First you trolled me on the Elvis Presley talkpage and now you are doing the exact same here by attempting to create a red herring by claiming that people may assume I have a "small agenda" because I wish to include a paragraph about Thatcher's early political development which in essence was about reversing the socialist state, her political career was driven by Hayek's ideas and the idea of getting rid of socialism altogether. How is this not an improvement? Thatcher is one of the most famous anti-socialists in the world. However, I have also found this may be of interest, when she was asked to define socialism in 1978 Campbell on p.95 wrote: "she was at a loss to reply. What in fact she meant was Government support for inefficient industries, punitive taxation, regulation of the labour market, price controls – everything that interfered with the functioning of the free economy."

Thus, we have three central points to possibly focus on to include in the article: Perhaps the paragraph could be short and sweet (no quotes) which includes all of the four basic points.
 * Thatcher developed a strong anti-socialist stance since her early political careers and was open about her desire to get rid of socialism in Britain.
 * Before she became Prime Minister she was unable to actually clearly define what she meant by 'socialism'.
 * After becoming Prime Minister she told the Party Conference as early as 1982 that her government had done more than any other in "rolling back the frontiers of socialism".
 * Her idea was implemented through a clear programme since her second-term until she resigned in 1990.
 * "Thatcher began to develop a strong desire to eliminate socialism from Britain during her early political career. However, when asked in July 1978 to define what she meant by "socialism", she was unable to give a precise definition. Nevertheless, after she became Prime Minister she developed a clear programme to get rid of what she defined as "socialism" from Britain."

What does everyone think?--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * She read Hayek's manifesto in college but almost never mentioned it the next 30 years -- it was Keith Joseph who taught her Hayek's ideas in late 1970s. Campbell "Iron Lady p 14 = "She made a very little acknowledgment of Hayek's influence over the next 30 years... It is only retrospectively that she would like to claim an intellectual pedigree that was no part of her essential motivation"''Rjensen (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please quit with the unfounded personal attacks. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Does it really matter where she got the information from? Enoch Powell also played a crucial part in her political views (although she did not publicly describe herself as a 'Powellite' after he gave his infamous "Rivers of Blood" speech). The point is, she eventually read Hayek's The Road to Serfdom and advocated everything he stood for, such as capitalism, the free market, etc. Before she became Prime Minister her political beliefs of Conservatism were well and truly established. The crux of her beliefs was the elimination of socialism in Britain.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What's the source for your claim that "the crux of her beliefs was the elimination of socialism in Britain." Perhaps some well-respected expert on Thatcher has made such a claim using those words? But I'm not sure you're making very much progress here. I'm not sure why you've opened a new thread here when the topic seems to be exactly the same as the previous one. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I created the new section with "continued" at the end because the other section was getting relatively long. I have presented more than enough evidence to support that her whole motive in politics was to get rid of socialism. I have quoted Campbell at length, why is that not good enough? Primary or secondary sources can clearly confirm what I have said. Since becoming the leader of the Conservative Party, she told fellow Tories that her main principle was to get rid of socialism. For example, Thatcher said during the Speech to Conservative Party Conference on 10 October 1975:
 * "It wasn't Britain I was criticising. It was-Socialism. (Applause). And I will go on criticising Socialism, and opposing Socialism because it is bad for Britain—and Britain and Socialism are not the same thing. ... So stay here. (Applause). Stay and help us defeat Socialism, so that the Britain you have known may be the Britain your children will know."
 * Another source available by Ben Jackson and Robert Saunders titled Making Thatcher's Britain on page 40:
 * "For Thatcher, thee goal was not to engineer a short-term improvement in the economy, but to eliminate socialism from British political culture. This is not to say that she was oblivious to economic hardship: only that she disbelieved in the possibility of recovery without this prior culture change. For Thatcher, as for Joseph, growth was 'like happiness': attainable as 'a by-product of other policies'. As she had putt it in 1975, 'Our aim is to build a flourishing society - not an economic system."
 * The "progress" is being halted for some unknown reason because the sources and quotes I am using to support my statement are being ignored. Perhaps you could tell me why.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is necessarily ignoring your sources. Although it's usually better to use an online version if you can e.g. like this. It's just that there is no consensus to add what you've proposed. It might be true, but it's not seen as an improvement. Plus the possibility that people may be a bit fed up with you going on and on and on, ad nauseum, about it. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it has been established by both primary and secondary sources that Thatcher pursued an anti-socialism policy from her early political beginnings. The only mention of socialism in the article is when she criticised in 1966 the high-tax policies of the Labour government and a quote from the 1982 Speech Party Conference. Between 1966-1982 was when she began to truly form her political beliefs and I can't understand why there seems to be a reluctance to add her anti-socialist stance in the article that discusses the 1970s. Her whole revolution was based on changing the whole of British life from socialism to capitalism. You claim, "that people may be a bit fed up with you going on and on and on, ad nauseum, about it" but I have not read a single counterargument against the inclusion of the proposed small paragraph mentioning her beliefs. A simple "I do not want it included" is not sufficient, surely there must be a reason why it is apparently not important enough for you or User:Rjensen.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Four days ago I said The phrase " totally eliminate socialism" seems very clumsy. I'd avoid adding such a claim unless it could be sourced to a quote from a respected RS. Otherwise it looks a lot like WP:SYNTH, doesn't it?. Do you still defend your suggested addition? 22:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. You also asked for evidence to support the claim of "eliminate socialism" and I referenced Thatcher's own speeches and two secondary sources (Campbell and Jackson/Saunders). Campbell was agreed from the start as a "very good source" by another user so there appears to be no reason to not use him as a source and the phrase "eliminate socialism" is verified in both volumes of his Thatcher biography. The material could perhaps be better worded if it appears to be considered original research but I still think that such material is worth mentioning considering how influential Thatcher was at implementing her ideas of getting rid of socialism (or however you want to word it).--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, "James". I see that the user name in your signature has now turned "true blue". Was it you who mentioned a "lost kitty" somewhere? I guess we won't be seeing you around for a while, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Removal of image
Is there any reason for the image that is described as, "Thatcher in New Zealand with Māori children, 1976" to be included in the article? New Zealand is mentioned nowhere else in the article and I'm sure a more appropriate image could be used for the Leader of the Opposition: 1975–1979 section.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't even know she had any. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Her 'office in the House of Lords'
I'm sorry but there is a major failure of English comprehension going on here. When it was reported in 2011 that Baroness Thatcher's "office in the House of Lords" had been closed, all that meant was that Baroness Thatcher no longer had a desk and staff based at the House of Lords to support her work in that House. No member of the House of Lords has to have any actual base there in order to be a member: the Lords is a 'part-time' House whose members come and go and might be absent for long periods. It has nothing to do with her membership of the House, which continued until her death even if she did not actually attend after July 2010. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to back this up, the Parliament.uk website is typically kept very up to date. Using the 'Wayback machine' you can see exactly what was going on at the time.
 * 3 April 2013 archive included Thatcher, Baroness as a current member.
 * 23 April 2013 archive has been updated to remove Thatcher, Baroness as a member.
 * It's worth mentioning as well that these lists of members exclude ineligible members, so it's not even the case that she was on a Leave of Absence at her time of death.
 * One thing I do need to point out, however, is that as of right now the infobox presentation is screwy. She is listed as a Lord Temporal for 1992-2013, being preceded by James Callaghan and succeeded by John Major, which is obviously the result of infobox parameters being incorrectly used. Fixed. ToastButterToast (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have reworded the parameter from 'In absentia' to 'In role', which is entirely accurate and should be pretty uncontroversial if that's ok. It's just that I think it's worth clarifying that her membership in the Lords was virtually symbolic during her final years, with the closing of her office serving as the confirming epoch in this regard, and to list her as having been 'in office' in the same sense that she was 'in office' for all of her other terms in the infobox seems bizarre and slightly confusing.--Neve~selbert 17:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The House of Lords is bizarre and confusing. There have been many peers who would only turn up once or twice in their entire tenure, which could be the best part of a lifetime. In my personal opinion, it would be better to display the term in whole (1992-2013), include a footnote explaining the situation, and have that footnote include the Walker citation. I think it's inaccurate to display the 'term' as anything other than a single length of uninterrupted time, as far as I'm aware Baroness Thatcher never filed for a leave of absence with the House at any point. That said, it might be worth looking into when Baroness Thatcher last attended Parliament or the last Parliament she took her oath in, and use that as a "separating" date to distinguish the parts of her HoL career (As a side note, I'm against using 30 July 2011 as that date, if a date has to be chosen. 30 July 2011 is just an arbitrary date a news article came out and doesn't bear much relevance to the discussion). However, those are just my suggestions and opinions, I don't have a whole lot of investment in this article. ToastButterToast (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * >" In my personal opinion, it would be better to display the term in whole (1992-2013), include a footnote explaining the situation, and have that footnote include the Walker citation." That was my attempted solution here. It still appears the best solution, albeit with the arbitrary date replaced with "Summer 2011" or simply "2011".--Hazhk (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it will be appropriate to use the original form used in most of the articles, like William Whitelaw, 1st Viscount Whitelaw or William Hague, being a member is taking an office. We should find the official date of ennoblement and date of leaving the House of Lords (resignation, death, etc.). Just stating an ennoblement date doesn't look proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhDoctor (talk • contribs) 10:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Margaret-Thatcher.jpg

Resolve content dispute
Dear @, how are you! I would like to kindly request a resolve of dispute here.

You reverted my edit saying "Not helpful". I believe adding link to "Baroness" and nickname "the Iron lady" in the first sentence helps more people understand them. Please let me know what you think. Please take no offense in I revert your revert. I am open to be convinced. Thank you! Xinbenlv (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:BOLDAVOID: . Her nickname is mentioned later in the same paragraph and there is no need whatsoever to include it twice. Your edits weren't helpful and were just unnecessary.--Neve~selbert: 20:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * @, Ok, convinced for not placing the link to Baroness. How about the Iron lady as a commonly known nickname in the first sentence? Xinbenlv (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It may be a commonly known nickname but it's WP:UNDUE and WP:SUBJECTIVE to include it in the first sentence.--Neve~selbert: 20:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Also of note, there are many past discussions of how and where to include "Iron Lady" in the archives (sample ).-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks @ for pointing out the previous discussions, thanks @ for help me understand your reasoning, it makes sense now. Because apparently more than just me believe it makes sense to reflect the nickname and apparently more than 1 person believe it will not be a good idea in the first sentence, do you all mind we run an RfC, if not previously conducted? Xinbenlv (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to comment on this issue. I don't think this edit improved the article. The third line in the article explains the Iron Lady moniker quite well, which in my opinion is a prominent enough position in the article. To immediately follow her real name implies the moniker was extremely widely used, almost on par with her actual name (which is false). One change that might be considered however is bolding "Iron Lady" in line 3, similar to how some nicknames are handled in other articles (e.g. William II of England - William Rufus; Richard I of England - Richard the Lionheart). ToastButterToast (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * @ Thanks for explaining to me. I think you are right. I am convinced and no further contest on any issues. Many thanks everyone who helped and commented here. Xinbenlv (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2018
"She was the longest-serving British prime minister of the 20th century and the first woman."

The sentence seems incomplete. I suggest changing it to "... the first woman to hold that office", or whatever you see fit. 86.191.155.51 (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Degree of B.Sc. from Oxford
I understood that M.Thatcher did a B.Sc. as a research degree (in Chemistry), which I believe it was at the time, and that her first degree was a B.A. (as virtually all first degrees were then at Oxbridge and Dublin (TCD), and possibly elsewhere). Could someone please check this about her B.Sc. and B.A., I think it's in one of the biographies. Similarly other Bachelor's degrees at Oxbridge are (still, I think) actually postgraduate degrees, for example the B.Litt., and the B.C.L. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donn300 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * That is correct. She got a decent second in her finals despite being ill and taking some of the papers in hospital, and was invited to stay on for a fourth year assisting Dorothy Hodgkin with her research. Her fourth year got her a BSc. At least one biographer has pointed out that this means her tutors - Dorothy Hodgkin and Janet Vaughan - must have thought a bit more highly of her at the time than their scornful and politically-motivated remarks about her in the 1980s might suggest. I've got some notes kicking around.Paulturtle (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Carried maps of Nazi German expansion in her handbag?
Did she really as claimed in https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/16/brexit-paranoid-fantasy-fintan-otoole --Palosirkka (talk) 07:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher - footnotes 125 & 130
"The lady's not for turning" was a pun upon the title of Christopher Fry's play: The Lady's Not for Burning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.4.246.90 (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The Margaret Thatcher Foundation
...the British wing of the Margaret Thatcher Foundation was dissolved in 2005 due to financial difficulties.
 * What other wings were there? Are they still going? Valetude (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * “Based in Washington, this educational organisation was formed in 1991 to promote her ideals: strong defence, transatlantic links and free trade.” Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Nothing on the foundation website that I can see about having a branch/wing/arm structure. MilborneOne (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2019
Add mention of Section 28 and a general discussion of Thatcher's attitude towards gay rights. Eveolivia97 (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Add mention of Section 28 Talk:Jill Knight is that way. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

about Margareth Tatcher
I am so confused about the reason why She known as iron lady,thank you Nath on the way (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See . Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it was because of her inflexible manner, although she did show a tear when she resigned. Vorbee (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is the above entitled "about Margareth Tatcher"? Should it not be entitled "about Margaret Thatcher"? Vorbee (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead image
The format of the lead image should be JPEG, not PNG, per this message. The JPEG version of Margaret Thatcher's portrait is sharper and it has good exposure value. --Wow (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The format should remain the same. The JPEG version is excessively sharp, colours are visibly inferior to the PNG and much darker than they should be; and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the long-standing PNG&mdash;the original file granted to the Commons by the Thatcher Foundation. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We seem to be conflating two separate issues: which file format to use and which image version to use. The two aren't intrinsically linked (and none of the differences that you noted pertain to the file format).
 * The JPEG format almost always is superior for transclusions of photographs; MediaWiki scales PNG-based photographs (as opposed to line art) poorly, so the thumbnails displayed are visibly degraded in comparison with the full-resolution versions from which they're derived.
 * If the appearance of File:Margaret Thatcher.png is preferred, converting it to the JPEG format (without altering any of the characteristics that you cited) results in an a visually identical copy that MediaWiki is able to scale and transclude properly. I just uploaded such a conversion.
 * Comparison:
 * 
 *  Margaret Thatcher.png   Margaret Thatcher stock portrait (cropped).jpg 
 * 
 * —David Levy 03:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for clearing things up. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Opposing German part-reunification
The passage about this chronologically wrong. It mentions first Thatcher's effort to torpedo the partial reunification of Germany and ends with her approving the opening of the wall. But these event came in the opposite order. First the wall was opened and only after that event the eminent German Chancellor Kohl had to overcome the resistance of Mitterrand and the entrenched Germano-phobic ennemity of Thatcher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:5CE2:3400:F40A:C5A2:C42:F914 (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

"Maggie (politician)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Maggie (politician). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2019
I request to change the spelling and grammar in the article as I have noticed a few reading through. TacoCatSupreme (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 13:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Spokesman?
As a non-native speaker, I am only marginally familiar with the issue of gender neutrality in English. I wonder if there is a reason why Thatcher is defined as a stateswoman in the lead but described as a spokesman afterwards. To me, this seems like an odd mix of old and new practices. Surtsicna (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree. There is no deliberate distinction, as far as I am aware. Of course, we could have the even more worthy "statesperson" and "spokesperson" (encompassing all articles for politicians, across all historical periods?) Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Was she called the spokesman or the spokeswoman in these posts? Spokesman is the traditional form for a person regardless of gender. DuncanHill (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

"prime minister" should not be capitalised
Per WP:JOBTITLES — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechanical Keyboarder (talk • contribs) 21:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thatcher degree
The article says she was given a Bachelor of Science degree by Oxford Univeristy. But Oxford did not award Bachelor of Science degrees at that time. All first degrees in Arts and Sciences are Bachelor of Arts. I fear making a change to this article but someone should correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobanian (talk • contribs) 06:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Oxford BSc was a graduate degree, done after the BA. It's mentioned in Degrees of the University of Oxford. DuncanHill (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe she was invited to stay on for a year to assist Dorothy Hodgkin (who much later, in the 1980s, dismissed her along the lines of having been "a perfectly good second class chemist") in her research.Paulturtle (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The introduction mentions she was the first female prime-minister, which is true. However In her autobiography, Thatcher herself say she considered her achievement to be becoming the first prime-minister with a science degree. Mentioning her sex instead of her academic qualification seems a disservice to her, to science, and to women.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.76.70 (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Postgraduate Career: 1947-1951
Title of subsection is misleading as it suggests further education beyond undergraduate. 'Early Career: 1947-1951' would be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.183.194 (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Margaret Thatcher at the Council.jpg

Child Sex Abuse
Between the recent revelations about Peter Morrison (see https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/abuse-inquiry-mp-peter-morrison-backed-by-thatcher-despite-claims-against-him-3jbnw9095) and the documented relationship with Jimmy Savile should we not add something about how the subject of this page repeatedly covered up Child Sex Abuse? 83.218.151.178 (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Unless we have more reliable sources to support your claim WP:UNDUE applies here. Graham Beards (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse found no wrongdoing on her part. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead
, what issue is there with the added details to the lead? The existing lead splits legacy between the introductory paragraph and the fourth paragraph and ignores the majority of her early life, career and early political career. Alex (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no issue with including her legacy details at the bottom of the lede (see Winston Churchill, for instance, which shares the same format). As for the other details, I'm yet unconvinced that they're necessary to include. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay but I'm still going to move the legacy details so that they are in the same paragraph (albeit the fourth rather the introductory paragraph). Alex (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, by legacy details I was referring to her epitaph, not her distinction(s) and political philosophy, which belong in the introductory paragraph. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a source for epitaphs. Please refer to actual Wikipedia policies since until you do so, I will continue to seek this change. Alex (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't intend the term literally, what I meant was an assessment of her legacy. Please refer to Winston Churchill's final lead paragraph for an understanding of what I'm referring to. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Still no policy cited I see. Alex (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a new proposed lead which satisfies MOS:LEAD and includes details I regard as important to include. Could you give some feedback on this so we can reach a consensus? Alex (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * thanks for demonstrating your proposed changes. I'll have a look at it in more detail later this week and hopefully we'll be able to incorporate several of these changes incrementally in the coming days. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Anti-German
Margaret Thatcher was well known for her prejudice against Germans. This became all too apparent during the question of German reunification in 1990. British historian John Campbell in his book Margaret Thatcher Volume Two: The Iron Lady wrote on page 634: "Yet forty years later she was still consumed by an ‘atavistic fear of Germany and [a] suspicion of the German people qua people.’ Equally curious is the fact that her animus was reinforced by Charles Powell. Sixteen years younger, a sophisticated former diplomat with an Italian wife, Powell should not have been prey to the same prejudice, but he was - as was embarrassingly revealed when Mrs Thatcher held one of her Chequers seminars on the subject of Germany in March 1990, attended by a clutch of her favourite British historians – Lord Dacre (Hugh Trevor-Roper), Norman Stone, George Urban and Timothy Garton-Ash, plus two distinguished Americans, Gordon Craig and Fritz Stern. Powell wrote an introductory paper which was subsequently leaked to the Independent on Sunday. Maybe he was just trying to please his mistress; but it was a shocking compendium of what Urban called ‘saloon bar clichés‘ about the German character, including ‘angst, aggressiveness, assertiveness, bullying, egotism, inferiority complex [and] sentimentality’. The historians were appalled to find Mrs Thatcher apparently unaware of the Germans’ crippling sense of guilt or the efforts that the postwar generation had been making for thirty years to expunge the shame of their fathers. In her view they had not changed and could not change. ‘I do not believe in collective guilt,’ she wrote in her memoirs. ‘But I do believe in national character.’ When Dacre reminded her that NATO had always supported German reunification - ‘We should rejoice, because we’ve won’ - she vehemently disagreed. When Urban argued that a United Germany would help restore the whole of Central Europe, she retorted angrily, ‘What you’re saying is “suck up to rich uncle, so that he is nice to you”. No, no.’"

Now, of course the whole quote does not need to be used, but I do believe that her views on the German people should be mentioned.--LeftiePete (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC: "Shadowing" parameter
Should the "Shadowing" parameter not be removed from the infobox per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which details how an infobox should be concise? Alex (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Not necessarily, though maybe you should launch a WP:RFC on the issue. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 11:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Alex (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly what is meant here? There is no "Shadowing" parameter. I believe that you refer to this portion of the infobox:  which creates a collapsed section within which there is a nested  that itself has 17 parameters, of which one (yes) is isolated, and the rest fall into two groups of eight. Is the intention to remove the two groups in their entirety, in which case retaining the other code is pointless; or simply to remove the Shadowing and Shadowing parameters, which would put some of the rest out of context?  -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove the Shadowing and Shadowing parameters. Again, this would be per my interpretation of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Alex (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, infoboxes should be concise with key facts! Having who their opposite number is would be a key fact! Ciaran.london (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes but why though? There could be an argument for including monarch and prime minister in all the political offices as well. However, we understand how neither of those determines whether an MP should be elected and the monarch doesn't appoint government ministers so we omit them from MP and government minister offices on that basis respectively. We have to be clear about why something is or is not key. Alex (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The monarch approves the government ministers that her Prime Minister’s appoints. Ciaran.london (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but you haven't explained why Shadowing is a key fact. I am aware of the relationship with the monarch. Alex (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to have quite strong opinions on this kind of thing. What do you think? Alex (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, I have a few thoughts. firstly, typically the person who is being shadowed is incidental and the appointment of a shadow cabinet is made for internal party considerations, in the past decade I can only think of a few examples where a shadow minister was appointed specifically because of who the government minister was (I'm thinking Ken Clarke being appointed as a 'Big Beast' to take on Mandleson at BIS back in 2009(?). If this was the case I would view it as noteworthy enough for inclusion in the body of a page. Secondly, if they were strongly related shadow cabinets would change in line with cabinets, which obviously they do not. Third, there aren't always parallels in government to opposition and I would rather it be standardised across the lot, having shadowing for some and not others is inconsistent and I think we should all aim for consistency. Finally I think it looks awful, the info-boxes become way too large and dominate the page which they really ought not to do, it was like when people started adding 'Sec of State' it just looks terrible and a bit high school project. As an aside, I do think there is one place where this should be included, but isn't - the relevant Shadow Sec of State pages should have a column to include the minister at the time, I think this would be a suitable compromise and actually enhance the Shadow Sec pages. Member1494 (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Family and childhood: First sentence, second paragraph - "Roberts" versus "Thatcher"
First sentence, second paragraph: "Thatcher spent her childhood in Grantham, where her father owned ..."

Should "Thatcher" be replaced with "Roberts" to be consistent with the other paragraphs in that section? i.e.: "Roberts spent her childhood in Grantham, where her father owned ..."

I thought it better to ask here first rather than just edit it (and annoy many people in the process!) Best regards, Gricharduk (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think you are right, it should be "Roberts". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Chancellorship in Infobox
I recently added that Thatcher was the Chancellor of William & Mary in her infobox, but it was reverted by, who directed me to the talk page. It seems to me that it should be included in the infobox, as most other chancellors include it in theirs. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , see Other offices held &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit War
Two experienced editors have a dispute on this page. Simply reverting posts is not helpful. One problem is that the controversial edit is large and encompasses several areas. Some points are no-brainers, such as making 'Monarch Queen Elizabeth' a link, but others need validation. I suggest that we put in the easy ones and then discuss the other points here and insert those for which there is consensus.OrewaTel (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have checked the links. Each notable person is now linked on the first mention and not on subsequent references as: "Predecessor James Callaghan, successor James Callaghan."
 * She was awarded an Honorary Fellowship so her title is HonFRSC not FRSC. (Strictly it was originally HonFRIC.)
 * One of the edits says she was dubbed 'Iron Lady' by a Soviet journalist but there is no citation. (I thought it was the newspaper The Sun.)
 * Some of the other changes were polishing the word order. Would the editors please explain their choices here?OrewaTel (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Resignation
An edit about Thatcher's resignation by Politicsnerd123 had been reverted. Thatcher resigned 22 November from both leadership of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister. The resignation was to take effect when a successor was appointed.John Major became Tory leader 27 November and was appointed Prime Minister by the Queen the following day. This means that the reverted edit was actually correct and I am re-instating it with a citation. OrewaTel (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Correction: I'm adding a cited note in resignation paragraph separating Prime Minister from Party Leader. OrewaTel (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , please see page 23 of this parliamentary report. Major is listed as having formally taken over as party leader on 28 November 1990. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It is always a problem when two reliable sources contradict each other. For sure the resignation and replacement as Prime Minister took place on 28th. This means that, as far as Parliament is concerned, replacement as leader of the ruling Parliamentary group happened on that day. But when was she replaced as leader of the non-parliamentary Conservative Party? That is another matter and the definitive source will be the private minutes of the Conservative Party's National Executive Committee. Alas these minutes are private. It isn't important because when she resigned on 22nd she lost her political power within the party. OrewaTel (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The report cites, and can be considered authoritative. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * this source clearly states that John Major was elected Leader of the Conservative Party on 27 November 1990: https://johnmajorarchive.org.uk/1990/11/27/conservative-leadership-results-november-1990/ we should change the infoboxes accordingly. 2A00:23C5:2C01:9501:D57C:2A14:6CDC:FCAB (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a self-published source. So, not reliable. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Use of the noun “Stateswoman”
The noun stateswoman is defined as a: a skilled, experienced, and respected female political leader or figure.

Although Baroness Thatcher was both a skilled and experienced politician, she is also a highly divisive political figure in British history who is both loved and loathed. Since she does not garner respect from the vast majority of the British population, it is in my opinion that stateswoman isn’t the correct term in this instance and should instead be replaced with politician. TobiasRagg2001 (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't what "your opinion" is that counts. It is what WP:RS supports. Leaky caldron (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

There are countless reliable sources that support negative public opinion toward Baroness Thatcher. I have included some below although I am happy to find more if that would help:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/margaret-thatcher-worst-prime-minister-pm-david-cameron-century-100-years-a7367481.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-46611049

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9982143/Margaret-Thatcher-why-is-she-still-so-demonised.html TobiasRagg2001 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The by-line in the Telegraph article sums up my point well: “It’s impossible to think of any other politician arousing such a degree of public hated” TobiasRagg2001 (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, she is also the most respected British politician in modern memory. Opinion polls have confirmed this over and over again and they are cited within the article. She is a textbook example of a stateswoman and has been referred to as such in plenty of reliable secondary sources, as well as in such primary sources as her official death certificate, also cited. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

"Politician" > "stateswoman"
I have changed the lead to "politician" over "stateswoman" again. One editor has reverted this several times, which IMO is incorrect for a few reasons:
 * "Stateswoman" is not a neutral term, as it implies admiration at least. Per WP:NPOV, we should not use Wikipedia's voice for that. "Politician" is neutral.
 * Reliable sources overwhelmingly use "politician" to describe her. While some sources have called her a stateswoman, "politician" is far more common. Following her death, for example, almost every media outlet used "politician" - The Times, Guardian , Independent , Economist , BBC , NYT.
 * "Politician" covers her entire career - 20 years as an MP, Minister and Leader of the Opposition before becoming PM. "Stateswoman" does not. --// Hippo43 (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * See . She is legally recorded as having been a "retired stateswoman" on her official death certificate. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A death certificate is not a reliable secondary source for her occupation. We do not know who wrote that. You are cherry-picking a source to suit your own preference for the text. Several editors have disagreed with you. You haven't addressed the points I made above. Please stop. // Hippo43 (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. I get your point, we can use both. She has been referred to as a politician first and foremost, I will concede, but she has also been referred to as a stateswoman by an abundance of reliable secondary sources, as well as most notably the legal document and primary source that is her death certificate. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how this works. WP:NPOV does not support "stateswoman" as it is a somewhat peacock term - it is inherently a statement of opinion and not fact. Your references to positive opinion polls above are irrelevant. Her death certificate is also irrelevant and not the "most notable" source in any way. Those are normally dictated by a relative. They are not a reliable source at all for this. // Hippo43 (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV does not preclude the citing of reliable primary and secondary reliable sources. It is not a peacock term in this instance, for the primary source cited does not make any attempt towards an opinion. It's a factual document with legal standing that refers to her as a "retired stateswoman" and this ought to be enough to employ the description. My references to positive opinion polls were relevant as a counterpoint to the negative references made by the user above. You cannot disregard a legal document simply because you disagree with its contents, that's not how this works. You have provided no evidence that the certificate was dictated by a relative and the secondary source cited makes no mention of this being the case. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph, as a secondary source, does not state that she was a stateswoman, only that she was described as one in her death certificate.
 * The Telegraph source clearly states that the death was registered by an employee of Thatcher. Not a reliable source.
 * If you are talking about using a death certificate as a source, you should understand how they work. The information such as occupation is provided by the person registering the death, usually a family member or someone close to the dead person. The process is widely known and available on the gov.uk website. As such, a death certificate is not an independent source, per WP:PRIMARY.
 * "Stateswoman" is inherently a peacock term. It may appear in some reliable secondary sources, but it does so as a statement of opinion, often in forms such as "seen as a stateswoman", or "Thatcher's image as a stateswoman". You have not cited any reliable secondary sources which state, in neutral terms, that she was a stateswoman. "Politician" is inherently neutral and descriptive. // Hippo43 (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You have not cited any reliable secondary sources which state, in neutral terms, that she was a stateswoman. see &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That looks to be a tertiary source. // Hippo43 (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't. It's a citation derived from the Cite Oxford Dictionaries template. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's an encyclopedia entry, usually considered a tertiary source. In any case, it doesn't overcome the subjective nature of the word (NPOV), the weight of sources using the neutral term (UNDUE), and the other editors who have disagreed with you. // Hippo43 (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's nonetheless a reliable source, but if you're genuinely interested in reliable secondary sources referring to her as such, I'll have to look for them for you. You have not provided any reliable evidence other than your own WP:OR that the term is inherently subjective and contradicts NPOV. Use of the term is not undue in light of the public record that I have referred you to repeatedly. As for the other editors, I'll note what had to say; 'It isn't what "your opinion" is that counts. It is what WP:RS supports.' WP:RS supports the use of both terms. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are obviously an intelligent person, but you still seem confused about death certificates. The secondary source you cited, and which I assume you read, clearly states that the death was registered by an employee of Thatcher, i.e. not a reliable source. If you can't be bothered to read up on the process around death certificates, you are not editing competently. If you do know how they work but are still arguing that his is a great source because it is a public record, you are not editing honestly.
 * One example in a public document does not outweigh the vast majority of reliable secondary sources, in terms of undue weight. There is no basis in policy for that.
 * Discussions on talk pages are not just based on reliable sources. We use common sense to discuss the meaning of words like 'stateswoman', or to discuss how things like death certificates work.
 * Definitions of statesman generally include something like respect or admiration, which are inherently subjective. If you disagree on that I would struggle to assume good faith. NPOV clearly states "Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source)." (my emphasis)
 * In other words, if we had a noteworthy source which described MT as such, we should of course include it, attributed, in a discussion of her legacy, alongside alternative views. // Hippo43 (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Of note, according to wikipedia Thatcher is the only statesman prime minister of the UK since Stanley Baldwin. 82.5.42.19 (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The trouble with Peacock terms such as 'Statesman' is that they are inherently undefined. If Thatcher is defined as a 'Statesman' then it would be difficult to find any British Prime Minister that doesn't deserve the term. The other problem of applying peacock terms to politicians is that many sources (even reliable ones) are written by people with a political bias. OrewaTel (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Chancellorship of the University of Buckingham
It is stated that, "...while also serving as chancellor of the private University of Buckingham from 1992 to 1998,[293][294] a university she had formally opened in 1976 as the then education secretary..." That cannot be correct - in 1976 Mrs T was Leader of the Opposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.235.244 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * . Thanks, &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox
Can a module be included within the infobox detailing Thatcher's scientific career, like on the right 81.147.76.243 (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Because an infobox is only for key information (WP:INFOBOX) and Thatcher is not noteworthy for her scientific career, hence I doubt that this would be "key information" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2021
can i please edit her date of death for i couple minutes so margaret thatcher isnt dead Ineedalawyer (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. I don't know why you'd want to change her date of death though. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Crisis in the Falklans, or South Atlantic?
I changed the sub-heading from Falklands to South Atlantic, which OrewaTel then reverted, claiming it to be the wrong name, although I am not sure what this means. I think it is more accurate to say the crisis was in the South Atlantic rather than the Falklands. The whole section needs a tidy but I have left it as is for now. Thoughts? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * feel free to reinstate the edit, I don't see any issue. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I was living in UK at the time and the papers were full of 'Falklands Crisis', 'Falklands War' etc. At no time did I see or hear 'South Atlantic Crisis'. As a point of accuracy, 'South Atlantic' is better since the trouble started in South Georgia but that was not the perception. Argentines landed on South Georgia and even erected a flag but that was not important. "We'll send a team to remove it when we get around to it." Then they landed in Falklands and all hell broke loose. I don't object to 'South Atlantic Crisis' as such but there are no citations and I expect there aren't any references to be cited. Of course, once Wikipedia calls it 'South Atlantic' then historians will start calling it by that name and so we will get some references. It's a bit incestuous though. OrewaTel (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The Falklands invasion was only part of a wider problem with Argentina, admittedly by far the most obvious. However, this Argentine military problem had begun much earlier such as with Argentine forces on the Antarctic peninsular in 1952. Argentina had established a base on the South Sandwich islands in 1976 that had led the UK to send down a small naval force. And then there was the landing on South Georgia in March 1982 that also led the UK to send marines from the Falklands and warships down to the south atlantic, all before the 2 April invasion of the Falklands. Argenine sabre rattling still continues in an around the Antarctica and the South atlantic, large parts of which it claims as its sovereign territory, of which the Falklands are only a part. I know most of the media coverage was focussed on the Falklands War, but there was, and still is, more to it than just the 2 April invasion of the Falkland Islands. That is why I think 'Crisis in the South Atlantic' is a better heading. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You may be right, although Thatcher was really only involved in the later part of that crisis? We have an article called Falklands War and another called 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands, but not one called Crisis in the South Atlantic? My recollection of the news at the time was the BBC used both terms, the tabloids used "Falklands" and the broadsheets used "South Atlantic". But I may be mistaken. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

There are also articles on the Invasion of South Georgia and Operation Paraquet. Lord Carrington resigned because of that government's mishandling of messages being sent to Argenina, which involved the Falklands and the dependencies not just the Falklands themselves. The ship Endurance, that was being withdrawn, was the UK presence in the South Atlantic, not just for the Falklands, even though Stanley was its base. The first military action in 1982 was on South Georgia, not the Falklands, which resulted in the notable announcement outside number 10. Although I am not trying to minimise the importance and later media coverage of the Falkland Islands, I think there is a case now, after forty years, in acknowledging the bigger picture. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The name Tam Dalyell lives on, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Activities during WWII
In a talk point I raised during 2013, now archived in Archive 22, I raised a question about activities of the then Margaret Roberts who was criticised in much later press correspondence for not having served or done ancillary war work (and implicitly being hypocritical about her enthusiasm for defence matters), although of age to in WWII, while others postponed or put studies on hold to volunteer or be drafted. I have been rereading a booklet Oxford's Famous Faces by John Dougill, published 1987, while she was PM, which mentions that while studying she 'worked twice a week in the forces canteen' but no indication where it was and what organisation ran it. I have seen no mention of it in authorised biographies published since that. If more detail could be found it would be interesting to mention. Dougill acknowledges her study of chemistry was encouraged as a way of nurturing potential scientific recruits to the munitions industry which could well have been employing her had the war not outlasted her university course.Cloptonson (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * feel perfectly free to add this. I've also heard that she worked as a fire lookout in Grantham at this time, which could be worth mentioning also. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you. In British parlance they were called Fire Watchers - yes, that could be added as it is sourced. Such duty if carried out at least 3 years and on application would have entitled British Fire Watchers to the Defence Medal.Cloptonson (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Encouraged by Neveselbert I have added both facts where they fit into the narrative, duly sourced. If anyone can shed more sourced light on the forces canteen in Oxford (where/who ran it) it would improve the info. At least the reader is left without a distorted picture of a cloistered existence untouched by the war.Cloptonson (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2021
Can Chairmen of the Conservative Party who served under Thatcher be listed in her infobox, as they are with most Leaders of the Labour Party, and many Leaders of the Conservatives? 81.157.224.127 (talk) 09:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Stateswoman?
We have had several edits that tried to add the word, stateswoman. This has been rejected by several editors. The main reasons were:


 * 1) Stateswoman (or statesman) is a meaningless peacock term.
 * 2) Stateswoman is a gender specific term that is against policy unless a reference demands it.
 * 3) The reference is a death certificate. Death certificates are notoriously unsafe as a source of boastful soi-disant adjectives.

OrewaTel (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The word has been in the article since at least May 2005, do we know when or why it was removed? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It should have been removed long ago. "Statesman" is simply an euphemism for politician and bureaucrat, and should be avoided. Dimadick (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you say that. According to Lexico, "stateswoman" means "A skilled, experienced, and respected female political leader or figure". It is used in Golda Meir. And the equivalent for men, "statesman", is used in Winston Churchill, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Charles de Gaulle. Interestingly though, "statesperson" (in the plural "statespeople") is used in Angela Merkel. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought that death certificates, just like those for birth and marriage, were discounted as sources because they are WP:PRIMARY? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To quote the cited reference, This, I believe, should be noted somewhere in the article. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Pullquotes violate MOS
The pullquotes in this article violate MOS:PULLQUOTE (emphasis mine):

I recently removed 3 pullquotes from the article in accordance with MOS:PULLQUOTE, but it was reverted and asked I bring the change to Talk. Generally at Wikipedia, consensus isn't required to make an article conform to MOS (while still respecting existing style, etc.). I intend on re-removing the pullquotes from the article in the future, but I will initiate the conversation about it here as requested. &emsp;—&#8239;sbb&#8239;(talk) 15:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Lead
Why are the words "is a British politician" being excluded from the intro? It's in the intro of the other recent British prime ministers bios. What makes Maggie different? GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * She's described as British in the following sentence, i.e. . Her role as a politician is implied from that description but can also be easily inferred from the final sentence of the same paragraph, which describes her as having, obviously making her a politician. Also, only BLP bios use , where using the past tense is discouraged per MOS:BLPTENSE. Personally, I would like us to introduce her once again with , but unfortunately that description has been challenged by several editors (see ). &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that that is a misreading of BLPTENSE. It simply says don't use past tense for people who are still alive, even if they no longer do whatever it was they were notable for. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant, yes. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The Americans would disagree with you, if you look at the intros of many of the US presidents & vice presidents bios. They use American politician in their intros. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've heard that the term is informal;  is the preferred form. Ironically it seems to be the other way round in Britain, where  is considered less preferable to . &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Anyways, I've brought this 'disagreement' over to MOS:BIO for clarification. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * One difference is that a British Prime Minister must be a member of the Houses of Parliament. (Recently this invariably means a member of the Commons but it is possible, albeit unlikely, for an active member of the Lords to be PM.) This means that the PM must be a politician. In USA the President is neither a Senator nor a Congressman and need not have previously been elected to any post. OrewaTel (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nitpicking: Congressman can be used for all members of the US Congress, though it's usually used for members of the House of Representatives. It's more accurate to say Senator & Representative. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Better source for Thatcher’s ancestry and it includes more
Although there’s nothing wrong with the source at the moment that is used as a reference for Thatcher’s distant Irish ancestry, I believe there’s a better source that also includes more of her ancestry. The source is The Ancestry of Baroness Thatcher. I propose to either replace the other source (a newspaper article) or include the source as well.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I would question the bit about "Her father's maternal grandmother" is actually relevant or encyclopedic and suggest anything other than her parents should just be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why should anything beyond her parents be removed? There are plenty of articles about politicians that include the ancestry of those politicians.--77.98.160.139 (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , it would be better to include this source in the bibliography of Margaret Thatcher rather than here where it is not currently required to verify the text. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 10:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A problem with the 2013 Belfast Telegraph report is that it just asserts the relevant information without citing or explaining the evidence. Given that it’s being used as a source for something that happened in the early nineteenth century, that’s far from ideal. Ejdguiseley (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s a much better source and is fully sourced. Check out the “Notes” section. It’s a hell of a lot better than a newspaper article that doesn’t cite any references.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The link itself is problematic though, as the only way for readers to view it is to download it, which may result in accessibility issues for some readers. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could just cite Charles Moore and his book Margaret Thatcher, The Authorized Biography, Volume One: Not For Turning. Thatcher said, "my great-grandmother was a Sullivan, so I'm one-sixteenth Irish." It's better than just a newspaper article.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * go ahead, so long as you can cite the page number. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If a reader is somehow unable to download and open the PDF version, then they can order a photocopy of the article, or buy a copy of the journal issue, or go to a library that has it. In any case, sources should not be chosen based on accessibility (see WP:SOURCEACCESS). Ejdguiseley (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Redirect "Thatcher"
"Thatcher" should redirect to the Margaret Thatcher article. It covers all of the guidelines and requirements for a direct.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * You'll have to request a move at Talk:Thatcher, per WP:RM. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Thatcher which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)