Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 8

Quote Style
Any reason why there are two styles of quotes used in the article? The quote beginning "The Russians..." is written with blockquote tags. The later quotes "Where there is...", etc. are written with cquotes. I like the way Wikipedia currently renders cquotes, but I will be happy as long as the article is consistent. --Mancheril 17:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

FA
This article is far from meeting FA standards. I suggest nominating it for a review. LordHarris 20:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done just that. One Night In Hackney  303  05:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Wobbly" Bush
The second-from-last paragraph of the 1987-90 section reads: ''One of Thatcher's final acts in office was to put pressure on US President George H. W. Bush to deploy troops to the Middle East to drive Saddam Hussein's army out of Kuwait. Bush was somewhat apprehensive about the plan, but Thatcher famously told him that this was "no time to go wobbly!"'' No matter how "famous" it is supposed to be, this claim requires a source. The source should demonstrate that the "wobbly" quotation and the whole scenario of Thatcher putting "pressure" on an "apprehensive" Bush was fact and not merely hearsay. Failing that, the paragraph needs to be removed. Conval 13:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, someone seems to have already done it. No reason to worry. 81.145.242.136 15:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation for Alliance poll lead and unemployment figures
As a relatively inexperienced Wikipedian, I'm not fully up to speed with how to add citations. For the one needed for the "brief opinion poll lead" under the "1983 General Election" section, MORI has it online at http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/trends/voting-all-trends.shtml (The Alliance lead was from from November 1981 to February 1982).

Further, the unemployment figures cited at the end of "1979-1983" ("official figures of 3.6 million but said by some to be over 5 million) seem a bit off. According to the UK Statistics office at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/tsdataset.asp?vlnk=429&More=N&All=Y the peak figures were in 1984-1986 and should therefore be in the 1983-1987 section and the ILO (International Labour Organization) figures peaked at just over 3.2 million, not 3.6 million (the Govts preferred figure of seasonally adjusted claimant count was lower, but still passed 3 million).  Should an unreferenced claim of 5 million be in here? (The Statistics office under Labour is unlikely to be massaging the figures to make the Thatcher governments look good, so the figures appear to be reliable).

Bearing in mind the possible contentiousness of this particular political figure, I thought it best to suggest the alteration on the Talk page first; if there are no problems, I'll go ahead and make the edit in a couple of days AdrianCooke 18:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Four great offices
With the new cabinet can someone confirm if there haven't now been THREE women to hold a great office (Jaqui Smith tipped for Home Secretary)

Also, there are now "5 great offices" as per the great offices article.

Highly Biased "Legacy" Section Must Be Removed
This section is tipping FAR too heavily in favour of Thatcher. I have several reasons for why it must be removed completely from this article.

-Really now, did Margaret Thatcher really "Rescue" Britain (It actually says that in part of this. No joke.) There was no source for that, and unless you can find a source in which someone says she "rescued" Britain, that line needs to be removed.

-Not enough sources: There are far too many parts of this section have "Citation Needed" written right in front of them. If she's so great, I'm sure you could come up with plenty sources to support your side of the argument...right? Thought not. Do something about it.

Any more reasons you want, just ask. I'm waiting for someone to fix this. 81.145.241.123 13:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree' Mattbroon 11:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote, it's a discussion. Waggers 11:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And i am telling you that i strongly disagree with your opinion. You are obviously trying to make her out as some sort of c=villain instead of keeping the article neutral as it currently is. Mattbroon 11:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not making her out to be any kind of whatever-villain, I'm saying that you can't just omit uncomfortable facts (like the poll tax, her relationship with Pinochet, and countless others) just because you don't like the fact that they happened. Still disagree? Thought so. Whatever you say though, you have to realise that this article needs some work. No, it is not neutral, in fact if it was neutral there wouldn't be an NPOV tag, now would there? Changes are in order. 81.145.240.231 20:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro
I believe that the introduction could be improved from simply "Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC (née Roberts; born 13 October 1925) served as British Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990 and leader of the Conservative Party from 1975 until 1990, being the first (and, to date, only) woman to hold either post." To this:"Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC (née Roberts; born 13 October 1925) served as British Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990 and leader of the Conservative Party from 1975 until 1990, being the first (and, to date, only) woman to hold either post and possibly the most controversial to date (being both loved and hated)." This would give a clearer introduction, to how important and massive a figure she was in modern history. Mattbroon 05:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:TALK, as well as the answers people have already provided you with on this issue in the page history --L ucid 05:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but as far as i am concerned, my edit meets all requirements and would make the introduction more suitable! Mattbroon 05:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you need to reread the guidelines. Simple as that. --L ucid 05:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "possibly the most controversial to date (being both loved and hated)" - I'm inclined to agree, personally, as Thatcher was all these things. However, it's just an opinion (see WP:NPOV) and a little more is needed before it's inserted into the article. We'd need more evidence to show the love/hate thing - A l is o n  ☺ 06:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, all it takes is a verifiable citation from a reliable source. The statement in question isn't actually all that hard to believe.  It's just that we can't include the personal opinions of any Wikipedia editor (not Mattbroon's, not Alison's, and not mine).  Find some political pundit or journalist who wrote that in a reliable source and we can find a way to include it.
 * --Richard 06:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly! Given the subject, that shouldn't be too difficult - A l is o n  ☺ 06:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Are there any suggestions as to how we could improve the intro then, so that it can include just how important a figure Margaret thatcher was, without it supposidly expressing an opinion? At the moment, the intro could be describing any old person in history! Mattbroon 08:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Talking about how important they are is an opinion in and of itself. The contents of the article should have all the ingredients anyone needs to form their own opinion, not telling them what they will probably think anyway --L ucid 09:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words
Here is an example: "She was a divisive figure, and some still hold her responsible for destroying much of the UK's manufacturing base, consigning many to long-term unemployment " Mattbroon 11:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC) And another: "Many on both the right and left agree that Thatcher had a transformative effect"

I believe that use of these words fall under the description of "Weasel Words", and people should be informed of this!Mattbroon 12:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, she is still heavily reviled by many on the left.GiollaUidir 12:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether she is or not, this is use of "Weasel Words" which must be stated. Otherwise people will go around thinking that everyone hates Margaret Thatcher! Mattbroon 12:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really. If a reader fails to understand that "some still" is fundamentally different from "everyone in Britain" then they should be on Margaret Thatcher.GiollaUidir 12:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pinochet-Thatcher.jpg
Image:Pinochet-Thatcher.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Reagan, Thatcher and the IRA hunger strikes
This is a good source that seems to effectively refute the suggestion that Reagan criticized Thatcher over the hunger strikes. Apparently, the Irish lobby in the U.S. pressured the Reagan administration to criticize Thatcher but they refused to do so. --Richard 06:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Main Image

 * Can't we get a better photograph as the main image, it's not a good one of her and there are plenty of others that would show her personality much more Something like this perhaps?. --Counter-revolutionary 13:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see the earlier discussions from archive 3 and archive 4. Because there are free images of Thatcher available, there can be no justification for the inclusion of "fair use" images. If you can find a better alternative image that comes under an applicable free-to-use licence, then please suggest it. :) Road Wizard 22:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Where has the thatcher jpg gone? Willieboyisaloser(Willieboyisaloser 14:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

A very left-wing view of Thatcher
The article is remarkably 1970s-Labour in its view of Thatcher. Why, for instance, is there no mention of the fact that the miners' strike took place without a ballot, was the second time Scargill had tried to use union muscle to bring down an elected government, that his thugs routinely assaulted the police, and that striking miners murdered a taxi driver by dropping a slab of concrete on his car as he drove under a bridge - none of which Kinnock, whom she accurately labelled "the strikers' friend", was prepared to condemn? You cannot really understand Thatcher with understanding the maggots she was up against - then and now. Tirailleur 15:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Steady on, old chap! You're not calling Lord Kinnock a maggot, are you?Phase4 15:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you insane Tirailler? The miners were beaten bloody by the police during that strike. Remember Orgreave with the vicious pickets assaulting the police's riot shields and batons with their bare heads?  SmokeyTheCat    •TALK•  16:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I don't remember any of that, Smokey, and neither do you, because none of it is true. I do remember, however, the repeated breaches of the law by the miners, starting with the illegal failure to call a national ballot; the illegal massing of 10,000 "pickets" at a place of work not their own (they were allowed a maximum of 6 at their own workplace and none at anyone else's) so as to intimidate their fellow workers into not working, and most of all I remember the convictions by a British jury of the strikers who decided to murder a taxi driver for taking their workmates into work. There is no room in a Wikipedia article for ex post facto self-justicatory hearsay to the effect that "it was the filth wot dun it". There is perhaps room for a piece in Wikipedia about why the left mistakes "I hate you" for a coherent political critique of a statesman who won her every argument with them. That would belong, though, in whatever article there is about Stalinism, revisionism, and repression, and is of a piece with all the nonsense about the police attacking miners. If you can't win the battle of ideas, smear the victor with lies, right? Tirailleur 16:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well you are clearly utterly insane, raving bonkers and a complete lunatic Tirailler. Five pickets died during that strike which is five more than the number of policeman who died. If you think Orgreave never happened you lost all contact with reality.  SmokeyTheCat    •TALK•  10:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Clearly utterly insane, raving bonkers and a complete lunatic"? A more polite way of saying that is "A tory".  Please do try to be polite.  Marcus22 (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This would typically be an argument into which I would dive about now, but there's not a great deal I can add to what Tirailleur has already pointed out so well in this discussion. I watchlisted this article to keep an eye on what was added, being suspicious that tragically misinformed left-leaning individuals may be inclined to throw in opinion driven thoughts like those discussed here, and i'm glad to see someone sharing my concerns. Thanks again, Tirailleur, for demonstrating the dangerous factual deficit in these all too commonly cited arguments. VWOzone (Talk) 22:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I must say that I'm a Thatcherite Tory although more libertarian than her. However, on the case of 5 miners being killed, the Channel 4 documentary on the Miners' Strike of 1984 states that only one miner died, and it was due to a brieze block being dropped onto the taxi that he was using to get to work. As for police vs. miner clashes, more police were hospitalised than miners were, and no-one died in those clashes.

Please search for the truth, whether it be supportive of your view or not. And remember that the evidence is not here to support your side, it is here to tell you what your side should be. Thatcher simply outsmarted Scargill on every turn, from the years of preparation to the passing of the laws that Scargill broke. Why did Scargil break the voting law? Because he thought he'd lose; why do you think that anyone avoids a proper vote?

The claim of 5 miners' deaths is simply wrong. The member who claimed this is either lying, or repeating a lie. Watching a biased documentary on YouTube does not constitute "fact".

Thankfully, the dictators that ruled the unions were beaten. Of course, it's always cool to be left-wing, always cool to hate the Tories, always cool to call someone a "fascist". Wee Jimmy (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Northerner and my family have always been Northeners (Lancashire). My dad was a builder and my great grandfather was a miner. Heres a fact for you, between 1947 and 1980 almost half of Britain's mines were shut down. Thatcher only did what others tried and failed to do because she was smarter, speed things up. Scargill was a raving lunatic who believed himself to be Lenin, unfortunately for him he wasnt smart enough. I'm deeply patriotic and am very proud of being a Northerner, but i can't understand why people are still trumpeting on about this issue. Coal mining in Britain was unsustainable and was costing the country huge amounts of money, there is still coal under Britain but it's that far down that people will not pay for the extra cost. The police were attacked by the miners it was not the other way round, if a miner was injured because a police man was defending himself then thats just tough. If Callaghan had continued to let the Union Barons ride roughshod over our country then we would be an insignificant backward little nation right now, suffering strikes and riots every other week. If mining coal in Britain is such a perfect plan then why has 11 years of a Labour government not implemented it once again. Perphaps they know something the socialists dont? ([User: Willski72]) 19:02, 6 October 2008Willski72 (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The original point was that the article appeared to be written with a left-wing bias. Nobody cares what your opinions are regarding Thatcher, the miners, and politics in general. The article is meant to display FACTS from a NEUTRAL point of view. --hubare (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section
Why is there no Criticism Section of Thatcher? The articles on George W. Bush and Tony Blair both have criticism sections why not Thatcher?  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  20:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Because when there was, it consisted entirely of lists of people who have stated that they hate her, as though that qualified as "criticism". If you look for measured critique of her economic policies, which is what all the leftist hatred seems to stem from, it is more or less impossible to find anybody now who seriously and cogently disagrees with anything she did in the areas of union and economic reform. That includes people in Opposition at the time and in power now. Pretty well everybody who disagreed with her then is now happy to support a Labour government that hasn't repealed any of her legislation. Tirailleur 17:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That doesn't include the large and now unrepresented majority in the UK who wish to see water and the railways re-nationalised, who don't want a replacement for Trident.  SmokeyTheCat    •TALK•  10:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If, indeed, there is such a majority, then your claim also implies that they, uniquely, are incapable of creating a new party as such a party would win some serious votes. That is an insult to the people of this country; they created the Labour party when they felt that the Conservative&Unionist and Liberal parties did not represent their views, and the SDP tried to replace the Labour party.

Also note that, if the Labour party did sense that there was such a majority, they could easily realign back. Instead, in order to become electable, they aligned away from your views. Wee Jimmy (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, she has been criticised for far more things than simple economic policies. What about her relationship with Pinochet (mentioned below)? Actions in Northern Ireland? They where both major points of criticism. 172.213.50.232 (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There are all sorts of references to protest songs expressing the wish that she'd die and so on, but little about why all these people hated her --Totorotroll (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of her referring to Mandela and the ANC as 'terrorists', recently criticised by David Cameron?! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-we-were-wrong-to-call-mandela-a-terrorist-413684.html The absence of a real criticism section makes this article very one sided and frankly inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.234.101.25 (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * yeah i agree, there seems to be a lack of criticism on this page, and the tories here claiming no-one really dislikes her are wrong, there are plenty of reasons why people disliked her, and there should be a criticism section that reflects that she is not all that popular as this article seems to suggest Jimjom (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This article does not make Thatcher out to be popular, it tries to summarise her life from a neutral point of view. The criticism is integrated into the text instead of adding it in a clump at the end. This is the preferable style of writing as it is neutral, what this article should strive to be. Woody (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why does a NPOV article leave out some of her more controversial issues, like, as mentioned above, referring to Mandela and the ANC as terrorists?? This article only seems neutral if you like her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.106.146.98 (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Conservatism
Was Margaret Thatcher a more of a radical conservative.. if she was should this be added/mentioned more-so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrlight (talk • contribs) 10:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really a Conservative at all IMHO, more of a radical libertarian. Heath, Pym, Major, and Clarke were Conservatives; Thatcher, Tebbit and Lawson arguably weren't. Tirailleur 17:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I debate that Heath really was a Conservative - he hated himself and his party labelled as Capitalists - when (especially in the 70s) it was a bitter rivalry in the UK between the Capitalists (Tories) and Socialists (Labour). This is backed up in the biography of Margaret Thatcher "The Grocer's Daughter". (Political commentator)--10:49, November 1, 2007 User:124.186.119.112

Thatcher's conservatism was of a liberal variety. Heath was really a technocrat without any distinctive conservative views.--Johnbull 19:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, Tirailluer. You're saying Thatcher was "not really a Conservative at all..." with all due respect that is rather ridiculous. Thatcher's views on the Europe, Northern Ireland, the Trade Unions, her opinion that supporting relentlessly brutal foreign tyrants is alright as long as they align themselves with Britain, and, most "Conservative" of all, her dreaded Poll Tax, all correctly label her as a radical Consservative, and any notions to the contrary are quite absurd...172.159.92.172 20:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Thatcher had such an impact that the word conservatism has come to be identified with her as a political force within the UK, certainly for anyone younger than 50 (unable to vote in 74) but you are correct that she was a radical within the conservatives, in contrast say to Francis Pym, Willie Whitelaw, Geoffrey Howe etc. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A radical libertarian? Hardly that.  Thatcher was an economic Libertarian; but socially she was very Conservative.  Marcus22 (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed...Thatcher's economic policies were of that standard, however her typical attitude towards, for example, foreign relations, were that she should align herself with countries which are developed along a staunchly anti-Communist, pro-U.S. line, generally similar to her own...that's a good example of the Baronness displaying predominately Conservative behaviour. FitzCommunist (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that Thatcher broke from the previous pattern of Tories, in that they espoused a Third Way, being economically and socially illiberal compared to Thatcher. This was the essence of One Nation Conservatism which Thatcher replaced. In terms of foreign policy, I don't agree with her too much in that I would not have supported Pinochet; however, it should be remembered that Salvador Allende, the man he killed, was hardly a paragon of democracy who routinely ignored his own parliament to the extent that it passed a statement condemning him as an autocrat.

Her foreign policy was, I suspect, a pragmatic anti-Communism (as Communism was the biggest threat to liberalism and libertarianism at the time). Why she continued to court Pinochet after he had clearly outstayed his utility is beyond me. Wee Jimmy (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Photos
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/multimedia/browse.asp?ps=500

This article is lacking photos, but the over 150 photos on the link above are all in the PD, because they were taken by a White House staffer. I do not have time to upload them now, but maybe someone else interested could. Thanks, Happyme22 23:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Pinochet info
Why is there so little info on her relationship with Pinochet? As an encyclopaedia article, there HAS to be more. 172.213.50.232 (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MINOR STRIKE SEPT29.jpg
Image:MINOR STRIKE SEPT29.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)