Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 28

Climate Alarmism
Four edits ago, Note 5 said, "In retirement, Thatcher rejected what she called Climate Alarmism." This was an accurate neutral statement. This has gone through several iterations including a statement that she rejected 'Climate Change'. That is not accurate, there is no evidence that she did not accept that climate change was real The current version says that she rejected 'Climate Alarmism'. That is accurate but is unsatisfactory in that it suggests (but does not actually say) that she was justified. The whole matter is complicated because 'Climate Alarmism' does exist. We could craft a complicated neutral statement that she rejected climate alarmism and also criticised some mainstream climate change considerations. But that is doubly unsatisfactory, first because it would be long and complicated and second because we would have to be very careful indeed not to go beyond the cited references. My feeling is that the simple, accurate neutral phrase, 'what she called climate change' is ideal.

User:Neveselbert correctly requested that we should take this discussion to the talk page. Please don't make further changes until we have a consensus. OrewaTel (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The current version is Thatcher supported an active climate protection policy;[nb 5] she was instrumental in the passing of the Environmental Protection Act 1990,[197] the founding of the Hadley Centre for Climate Research and Prediction,[198] the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [..] In retirement, Thatcher became sceptical about her policy, rejecting "climate alarmism"


 * The statement "became sceptical about her policy" means that later she believed that "an active climate protection policy" may have been wrong and that "the Environmental Protection Act 1990" may have been wrong.
 * That position is called climate change denial. It is not just opposition to the "alarmism" that does exist.
 * Also, the author of the Telegraph piece, Christopher Booker, was a denialist himself and obviously put his own spin on it, including using the propaganda term "alarmism" for what is actually the consensus. Maybe he blew some innocent statement of Thatcher's out of proportion because she was one of the saints of market fundamentalism and her acceptance of climate science, atypical as it was for market fundamentalists because man-made climate change refutes the assumption that free markets cannot do wrong and because man-made climate change requires restrictions to the energy market, did not fit his world view. We don't know what really happened if it was filtered through the denialist echo chamber.
 * I think it would be best to delete the "sceptical" thing and the Booker source altogether. This sort of thing needs a better source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether The Torygraph is an acceptable reliable source is a whole different discussion. That is the current cited reference and we cannot editorialise a reference to suit our own World-view.OrewaTel (talk) 08:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not about "our own World-view". Climate change denial is WP:FRINGE, the author of the piece is a WP:BIASED source - Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, which means that we have to at least attribute the word "alarmism" to Booker.
 * Even better would be to omit it as a whole because of WP:ONEWAY: If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. If the only source we have that Thatcher embraced a fringe idea is someone who himself embraced that fringe idea, then we should not use that source, no matter whether the source is formally reliable. If she really did, then there should be other, less biased sources saying it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Since there was no contradiction, I deleted the Booker thing. There is no requirement to use every formally reliable source there is; we have to select. Booker's conversion narrative was begging the question. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Addition: The Booker source was introduced here. There may be a WP:OWNERSHIP problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There is contradiction. This is a real notable fact and should be included. We are only arguing about the wording. I paused to let other people join in since there are more than two editors interested in this article.OrewaTel (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I said, Even better would be to omit it as a whole because of WP:ONEWAY. You did not respond to that. Instead of discussing, you just revert.
 * How do we know it is a fact? Because Booker says so, a guy whose output is full of bullshit, distortions, and lies? A conversion story is always a top talking point, so people invent them to suit their purpose. See the Darwin deathbed retraction myth by Elizabeth, Lady Hope. As I said, this is a WP:FRINGE question, and not all opinions are born equal. I'll gather people from WP:FTN. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * An opinion column is not an acceptable source for factual statements. On top of that, if the only person saying this is somebody with a reputation for saying bullshit about climate change, well... I'll also note WP:ONUS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * If there is a better source, that would solve problems. I am having a hard time finding one, however. jps (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If this is necessary to the article, just source this BBC article quote: In 2003, her book Statecraft recanted her earlier views, casting doubt on "alarmist" science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - a body she helped to create - and warning that: "The new dogma about climate change has swept through the left-of-centre governing classes." Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Roger Harrabin, author of something called "Uncertain Climate"? Well, at least he put "alarmism" in quotes. And BBC is better than Telegraph. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Harrabin is a pretty good journalist on climate matters. On my reading of that piece, it seems to me that "alarmism" in quotation marks likely indicates that Thatcher actually used the word. It'd be nice to get the full quote, however. Google books is of no help to me. jps (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Another one, found by User:Itsmejudith and posted to Fringe theories/Noticeboard: . This one should be more useful. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher Selection Vote Rigged
Hi, I recently heard that Thatcher had originally lost her selection vote for the Finchley seat. However the voting figured were changed by a member. I heard this on a podcast but also found this link.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/23/margaret-thatcher-six-things-know Encyloedit (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a specific edit suggestion for the article? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just wanted to check two things as this wiki states that she narrowly beat Ian Fraser but the article suggests that "her main rival was Thomas Langton". So is the Wiki correct?
 * 2) My suggestion is that we add this to the early political career section Encyloedit (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd be careful with that source which appears to be from a biography containing letters and other primary sources. There does not appear to be much actual journalism supporting this. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ...so your problem with the source is that it uses too many primary sources? 109.228.176.49 (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:EXCEPTIONAL for a brief explanation. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Lead
The last paragraph of the lead has no citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.35.8 (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * That's intentional, see MOS:LEADCITE. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Madame Tussauds
I've removed that image; it's not suitably representative of how she is depicted in popular culture. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That image was not mentioned in the text, so without some source(s) it's not possible to judge its importance or even to know if it is still exhibited. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC) p.s. possibly better in black and white

Typographical error in hyperlink?
Is the hyperlink reference to John Campbell’s piece in Feeman broken, in effect, by a typo? I am useless at ICT; could someone have a look at it, please? Thank you. Horatio the Younger (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I take it you mean Freeman, but I'm not sure what error you're referring to? Everything seems to be in working order and all the hyperlinks appear to be functional at my end. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 09:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Statue in Grantham
I added to the "Cultural depictions" section, the unveiling of a bronze statue of Thatcher, in Grantham, on 15 Nay 2022. This was reverted one minute later here with the edit summary "completely irrelevant". Why is this "completely irrelevant", when we already have, in the same section, an image of the wax figures of Thatcher and Ronald Reagan at Madame Tussauds in London? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You can add this detail at Cultural depictions of Margaret Thatcher. It's not needed nor particularly relevant in the main article. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How is that statue relevant to Cultural depictions of Margaret Thatcher, but "totally irrelevant" here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe it to be WP:UNDUE in the main article. Its inclusion would just be an example of WP:RECENTISM. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not just WP:RECENTISM. It shows that, even 9 years after her death, a statue of her is still controversial? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's quite clearly not "completely irrelevant", given that it has featured prominently in news stories and shows that this person's legacy remains highly contentious several years after her death, and decades after her political leadership. I'm not going to argue with the apparently highly motivated powers that be over its inclusion in this article, but for the time being it needs to be added to the "Cultural depictions" article, and in due course I have little doubt that a freestanding article will need to be has already been created, similar to Statue of Edward Colston.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC) updated Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That reminds me, I must add more eggs to my shopping list. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Whilst not completely irrelevant the statue is not important for this article. I have a lot of sympathy with Neveselbert's point of view and the statue certainly does not need a complete section. Maybe a single throwaway sentence with a link to Statue of Margaret Thatcher (Grantham) would be appropriate. OrewaTel (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, - I can see you're insistent in WPOWNING this article. The only reason I added a sub-section with a link to the separate article (hence in the TOC) was that it needed Google to find the latter. SOOOOOOOO - I added it for navigation, perhaps for the benefit of those who may be less familiar with WP. I'll try to take a wider learning example from your intervention, and try to be conscious that I should look at the TP first. I was on a wiki-break, but rather suspected..... By the way, this instance reminds me that I was the only one who gave direct evidence at the de-frocking of a sysop, who previously disrespected me with words to the effect of my preference of using a Google search to navigate showed an ignorance of mediawiki software, and that I should take another editor (his mate) out for a pint....Ugh. . Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I just believe a consensus should be determined here as to whether to include this information in the article and if so, in what capacity. I agree with that a passing mention of this statue might be appropriate, although I would note that there is currently no mention of the London Guildhall statue, which also experienced vandalism, so I still don't believe mentioning it in the main article is warranted. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd be very surprised indeed if most editors thought the Grantham statue, and the Guildhall statue, should not be mentioned here at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Chemist or Prime Minister
A recent edit (reverted) described Maggie as a 'chemist, lawyer and politician'. Whilst that is correct, it is misleading. She was 'Prime Minister' and that is the important fact. That Maggie was a trained scientist with experience in law is of interest and should be noted. But she was neither a career chemist nor lawyer. OrewaTel (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Remove the citations from the text and use them only as references in the article
In the Overview section there are few cases of the citations actually being used in the text of the article instead of as references. Should this not be fixed? “Burns (2009, p. 234)”, "Purvis (2013)” and “Barker (1981)” appear in the text and seem to be very out of place instead of just being used as references at the end of the sentences. FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Reputation
The reputation on Margaret Thatcher wiki page seems to be one-sided, so much, so it's coming across biased, always looking good in her favour. Take a look at how it clams YouGov holds her in a: "see[n] in overall positive terms" by the British public, a positive reputation, which is not the case, As YouGov has had a mostly negative reputation for her since long before her death, and the dislike for her only keeps growing, as their own polling is now at disliked 39% popularity 30% and neutral 27%. Why is it showing false information? Hardergamer (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)on
 * First I must declare my bias. I think she was utterly evil and the harm she did the country will take generations to eradicate. However for a politician to achieve a permanent 30% popularity and only a 40% dislike shows a high degree of popularity. Whilst I would love to express my own opinion, I must be guided by reliable references. Statements about the people I know whose lives she ruined and communities she destroyed would alas be classified as original research. OrewaTel (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously she wasn't "evil" by any stretch of the imagination nor by any definition. To make such an absurd statement is not only factually inaccurate but needlessly offensive. The "harm she did the country" is debatable, as indeed is the good she brought to the country, all taken into account by this article. As for "lives she ruined and communities she destroyed", it would be less WP:OR, more WP:FRINGE. While there does exist a consensus that lives were ruined and communities destroyed during her period in office, there is no consensus that she was the individual responsible. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think anyone who could bring in a "Poll Tax" is very "evil", and evil by definition with what it was intended to do. Hardergamer (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You obviously haven't got the slightest understanding of what the charge was intended to do. Try reading the article. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 09:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is the case, actually. Have you read the citation beside the "see[n] in overall positive terms" claim, which is a direct quote from it? YouGov does not record "a mostly negative reputation for her" and never has done. YouGov's polling has repeatedly concluded that's she's seen more positively than negatively. The polling you seem to be referring to is an online poll which cannot be relied on for accuracy. There is no false information. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This was not a single poll, but the total combined polling made quarter going back many years, I can remember a major YouGov poll in 2011-2012 as the first one I saw, and it was strongly negative even back then. And YouGov is known to be biased as it's owned by a major Tory donor, but I'm glade YouGov has stated this on Thatchers polling page:  "Correlations identify things people with a positive opinion of Margaret Thatcher are more likely to rate positively than the rest of the population"
 * Also, why has her connection with Jimmy Savile been removed? Her page had a section about them for years, mainly how she worked hard lobbing every one to get him a Knighthood (now gone), but her own ministers/MPs and Senior civil servants repeatedly warned Thatcher not too, That alone is of major importance, there was even a BBC documentary (Panorama?) in the mid 90s claiming the police had warned civil servants about him, and she was told, and she would have known about him boasting on TV about having sex with many teenage girls in 83 and again 90s in one of his own columns in the Sun he claimed he had sex with teenage girls in Scarborough, other celebrities have their connections with him shown in Wikipedia even some royals do, any other person would have their connection shown, just not her.
 * Even the suggestion of knowing about it would be talked about in any other person.
 * https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/explore/public_figure/Margaret_Thatcher Hardergamer (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence at all of "bias" on the part of YouGov, they are one of the most foremost and reliable pollsters in the UK. Where is the evidence of a poll that was "strongly negative"? What section about "her connection with Jimmy Savile" existed when? You really need to link what you're trying to prove instead of wp:soapboxing as you're doing. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 09:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we put this discussion to bed? I realise that this is anecdotal, but I have consistently found a majority of British people look upon her favourably. Most of my friends and people that I respect have a different opinion but YouGov polls the general population. The evidence is clear. Her popularity won the only polls that matter, namely General Elections and since her retirement (and death) she seems to be even more popular. I am very much reminded of Derek Hatton who was a contemporary Deputy Mayor of Liverpool. His policies nearly bankrupted the Council and resulted in higher rates and reduced service for years after he was expelled. Nevertheless he was regarded as a folk hero by many Liverpudlians. OrewaTel (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Add the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom category to this page
All the other PMs have this category. Thatcher should not be an exception. 92.30.72.123 (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Done. Quellenbrunnen (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Typos under Legacy
In the first paragraph of the Overview section, there are several instances where "per cent" is used where "percent" is applicable. As this is a restricted article that cannot be edited by unregistered users, I cannot make the edit, and more importantly, the paragraph deals with numerical/financial subjects, thus the need for clarity. 131.7.52.152 (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Both "percent" and "per cent" are acceptable spellings. "Percent" is more usual in the US, while "per cent" is more usual in the UK and Canada.  Since the article is about a UK-centered subject, the British spelling is preferred. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

What's the reason for the short lead?
I was asked to take it to the talk page, so here I am. Why does the longest serving Conservative Leader and Prime Minister have a shorter lead than the shortest serving one? HighlyLogicalVulcan (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * See MOS:LEADLENGTH. Length of service is immaterial, the length of the article is what matters. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Margaret Thatcher lead is 5 paragraphs in length. The Liz Truss lead is only 4. Quite frankly, you could replace the Thatcher lead by "British Prime Minister" and everyone would know who and what the article was about. Liz Truss is far less famous and actually needs a lead to answer the question, "Liz who?" OrewaTel (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2022
In the introduction, please remove the reference to Major as "her chancellor" and replace it with a reference to him as "her Chancellor of the Exchequer". This clarifies that it's his office, not Lord Chancellor or one of the many other positions listed at Chancellor with widely varying responsibilities. 175.39.61.121 (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. Edit made OrewaTel (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thatcher's bachelor's degree
I have edited this page, the page List of honours of Margaret Thatcher, and List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by education as they contain the claim that Thatcher has a "BSc" or "Bachelor of Science" degree. This is not true. Oxford university does not issue BSc degrees. An official Oxford website says so:


 * For historical reasons, all three-year first degree courses in Oxford lead to a BA degree, even if they are in a scientific subject: nobody gets a BSc at Oxford.

The Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society also states the following:
 * While she could have received an unclassified Oxford degree after three years, Margaret Roberts decided to try for a classified BA with honours, a choice that meant that she would stay for a further, fourth year and conduct research.

I could not find anything in the page's current sources that suggests she completed a tagged degree entitled the "Bachelor of Science". Dawkin Verbier (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

First sentence
Around half an hour ago, I edited this article's lead section with "Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, DStJ, PC, FRS, HonFRSC (née Roberts; 13 October 1925 – 8 April 2013), was a British politician who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990 and Leader of the Conservative Party from 1975 to 1990." This was reverted soon after, with an edit summary suggesting I look at the talk page. The most recent discussion on this sentence is in Archive 28, which only says that we should not include the fact that she was a chemist or a lawyer, which I agree with. However, there is nothing that says we cannot describe her as the politician she was. All other prime ministerial articles after Mrs. Thatcher use the same style, so why not her? Without it, people could question her nationality or occupation. Was she an Iraqi journalist? A Zimbabwean artist? A French doctor? A Russian pilot? A Chinese actress? The point of the first sentence is to provide information on the subject; there is no reason to exclude Thatcher. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 27. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. However, there you advocate for her description as a "stateswoman". I would be fine with this. What do you think? Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would prefer that. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. Done. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The discussion about this suggested that 'stateswoman' was a Peacock Term. Whilst it is redundant 'British Politician' is both true and uncontroversial.It is only 10 years since she died so it is a bit soon to whitewash her reputation. OrewaTel (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What about "was a British politician and stateswoman"? This is similar to the phrasing in Thomas Jefferson's article. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Two wrongs don't make right. Just because Jefferson has a peacock term does not make it right for another article. However the term 'stateswoman' will probably get smuggled into the article at some time. The fact that a sycophantic journalist wrote it once means that there is a reference in a puffed up article in a newspaper that is a Conservative Party propaganda sheet. OrewaTel (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not sycophancy, it's a fact. She was a stateswoman. Whether people like it or not, she meets the definition completely. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not Conservative Party propaganda. I am not a conservative, and I agree that Thatcher fits the bill of being a "stateswoman". Wikipedia is not for POV-pushing. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

"Thatcher was re-elected with another landslide"
To state that, “Thatcher was re-elected in a second landslide…” when referring to parliamentary elections is incorrect. It implies that the U.K. prime minister is elected by the public to that position, when he or she is not. A better way of stating election results would, in this and similar cases, be, “The Thatcher-led Conservative Party was re-elected in a second landslide…” (and third, etc.). 2.97.212.181 (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * While the UK prime minister is not elected by the public, stating that "Thatcher was re-elected in a second landslide" is a commonly used shorthand that accurately conveys the re-election of the Conservative Party led by Thatcher. While adding the phrase "The Thatcher-led Conservative Party" may provide more context, the original statement is a valid and widely understood way of referring to election results. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * It is also true that whilst people are actually voting for their local MP, they are often voting because of the Prime Minister - particularly if the PM is charismatic. (And Maggie was charismatic.) It is accurate to say Margaret Thatcher was re-elected whereas I would prefer to say (for example) that John Major's Government was re-elected. OrewaTel (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * You both make good points! I have to agree with you both on this one. --2.97.212.181 (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1979 General Election victory (8640840800).jpg (discussion)
 * Baroness Thatcher with the Queen and President Reagan (8639737071).jpg (discussion)