Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 9

Main image
Would this image look better as the main? It's color and I cannot seem to find any headshot portraits of Thatcher. The one currently used is in b&w and from 1975, and a better one of her from her PMship would probably look better for display. I cropped this one from a White House photograph with President Reagan (Image:Thatcher Reagan Camp David sofa 1984.jpg). I'll keep looking, but this is our best bet. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is a better photograph as it shows her whole face, as the current one is a photograph from her side. Would anyone object if it was used as the main image? LordHarris  10:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it's highly doctored. I cropped it from this image, but it was very blurred so I tried to do some things with it in Photoshop and it's still blurred. I think the other photo is our best bet as of now, but if anyone can do anything better with this one, please do. Happyme22 (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling out righty POV pushers.

 * I take it from this that you're a "lefty POV pusher", so thanks for the warning.Tirailleur (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice assumption there, Mr "I'm going to tell everyone what's wrong because I know I'm right." WP:CIVIL. Also, put new text UNDER old text. Sporker (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you heard me. Your day is coming...fast.

Frankly, I am disgusted at the information being omitted from this article in order to make it "neutral". Yes, thats right: saying that your deleting uncomfortable information about Thatcher is in the name of NPOV is no longer a good enough excuse. Plenty of sources can be cited for the allegations constantly being removed to attain the completely biased goal of defending her "freedom-fighting" reputation (on the right, of course). I have come up with a list of unsung tunes about Thatchers biggest mistakes and let-downs, with totally reliable sources, so don't whinge to me about "But you can't prove it..." NPOV applies here as much as everywhere else.

1. Arms deals to Argentina: The Baronness sold arms to their enemies during the Falklands War, with a full knowledge that, if conflict broke out again, they would be used against British servicemen...a lovely source to prove that can be found here.


 * If you had read your own link, you would have found that it discusses arms sales to Chile. Your first sentence implies arms sales to Argentina during the Falklands War. Your second implies that Britain sold weapons to Argentina's enemies during the Falklands War - which seems quite reasonable, but doesn't support your assertion that these weapons would have been used against British troops. You've repeated this claim above as well. Perhaps you were confusing the two countries? Or perhaps you were confusing French arms sales to Argentina before the FW with British arms sales to Chile after it? FYI, Chile has been a strategic ally and weapons customer of Britain's for approaching 200 years. Their navy was set up for them on British lines in the early 1800s by Lord Cochrane, a British naval officer. In WW1 they waived delivery of a dreadnought Britain was building for them, so that it could be added to British naval strength against Germany (it became HMS Canada). In the Falklands War, they offered - and the SBS may have actually accepted - the use of Chilean bases against Argentina. As the head of state of a staunch ally of centuries' standing, I don't see what the problem is with Thatcher's personal relationship with Pinochet, except as a minor aside. Unlike, say, the consequences of Blair's invidious relationship with George W. Bush, it was not the defining feature of her administration, nor even a very significant one. Tirailleur (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, okay, I slipped up slightly. But so what? What you're saying is that Chile was a good ally for some time - fine by me - and that Maggie was a good person for her support of Chilean fascist Augusto Pinochet.


 * You didn't "slip up slightly", you argued for the inclusion of a falsehood which fitted your agenda but which is completely unsubstantiated, and is in fact rebutted by your own link. I also didn't say that "Maggie was a good person for her support of Chilean fascist Augusto Pinochet". I said I didn't "see what the problem is with Thatcher's personal relationship with Pinochet, except as a minor aside", which is how the article properly treats the events of 1998. She also had a relationship of sorts with Gorbachev, former head of state of a brutal totalitarian leftist dictatorship. Should that be mentioned too, or is it OK by you if she remains on cordial terms with brutal deposed old lefties? Tirailleur (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You are also saying that the Pinochet episode wasn't notable...this claim is not only callous and offensive but absolutely absurd...the Baronness was well known for this at that time, and it's major news coverage all over the world as she continued to back and defend him. If you still don't believe that this was notable in Maggie's adimistration you are utterly raving mad. Sporker (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you re-read some of that "major news coverage", you will find it refers to events in 1998. If you refer to the wiki article, you will find her administration ran from 1979 to 1990. Were you under the impression that she was still in power in 1998? Tirailleur (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

2. In 1999, Thatcher basically said all of Britains problems where the fault of a continental Europe. Such comments where attacked by a former foreign secretary. The BBC said that:

"A former foreign secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, said her comments could give the impression that British people were prejudiced against Europe."

This is a good source, again from the BBC, which proves it true and means it must be inserted in the article.


 * The fact that the BBC says something does not ipso facto prove it true; the BBC also said the Iraq WMD dossier had been sexed up by Alastair Campbell, for instance, which proved to be untrue. Also, again, you don't appear to have read your own link properly - it includes a rebuttal of your central assertion, namely that the context of her remarks was WW1 and WW2. And as with the previous claim, how is something allegedly said 10 years after Thatcher left office, and challenged at the time, of sufficient significance to warrant any inclusion at all, much less prominent inclusion? Tirailleur (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Tirailleur, you are completely disconnected from reality. You are also completely incorrect. The BBC link says that party officials said she was talking about the First and Second World Wars. What, so inclusion isn't justified? And just because it's what her party scronies say means it's absolutely correct? It's notable and must be inserted! Sporker (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So we agree it's been refuted and that your only source is an ancient BBC article. What was the question again? Tirailleur (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

3. Tony Blair also criticised Maggie, equating her to "history" and basically telling the British people that they had to move on "from the time of Thatcher." He said:

"Today we have to deal with those problems we inherited from that time: the boom-and-bust economics, the social division, the chronic under-investment in our public services."

Ouch! I think criticism she recieved from a succeeding PM is as relevant here as it is anywhere else. This should be sufficient proof coming from - of all places - The New York Times.


 * Not really; Blair is a Labour PM and Thatcher a Conservative, so it's not as though he can be considered a neutral or in any way impartial commentator. I'm not sure what you'd expect him to say? That he was deeply grateful for the structural reforms she forced through at risk and cost of unpopularity, that he opposed all the way, and by which he in government subsequently benefited hugely? Tirailleur (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What on God's earth are you talking about? Mr Blair had respect for Thatcher's ECONOMIC accomplishments. What you're saying is that it's fine to insert enthusiastic praise toward Thatcher from other, opposing parties, but it's wrong when they may hint at slight opposition to insert it, even when sourced. After all those years at Eton, you should know what "neutral" means. Oh well. If you don't, this handy little guideline can explain what it means to you. Sporker (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Once more I suggest you re-read what I actually wrote. If you are unable to do that then you will probably not enjoy editing wikipedia. HTH. Tirailleur (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well? Inserting sourced, yet uncomfortable facts like these, combined with, as an anon has said above, more info on her relationship with Pinochet, will have to be done in order to avoid NPOV disputes going on forever. Any thoughts? Thanks, Sporker (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you're clearly on a mission here, and it is a bit odd that your proposed solution to perceived right-wing POV bias is to insert some left-wing POV bias instead. That is a recipe for a revert war and an unreadably equivocal article, not for a balanced one. If you can articulate and actually substantiate any criticisms you want to offer - and "me and my mates hate her" wouldn't qualify as such - then have at it. There are a few valid critiques, around succession planning and around the fact that her economic policies in 1980-81 shortened Britain's recession at the cost of deepening it, but I haven't seen any in your suggestions here. HTH! Tirailleur (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"...it is a bit odd that your proposed solution to perceived right-wing POV bias is to insert some left-wing POV bias instead..."

Nonsense. I am adding in sources to prove my assertions and writing them in neutral language that even those on the right have complimented! But there's always one that just can't handle it when their hero has their reputation slightly tarnished. In this case, that's you.

"If you can articulate and actually substantiate any criticisms you want to offer - and "me and my mates hate her" wouldn't qualify as such - then have at it."

As far as sourcing is concerned, see above. Also, insulting the Working Classes and Irish people that had to suffer under Thatcher is hateful and offensive.

"There are a few valid critiques, around succession planning and around the fact that her economic policies in 1980-81 shortened Britain's recession at the cost of deepening it, but I haven't seen any in your suggestions here..."

Sigh. Look, enough about me, what are YOUR suggestions? I assume you're planning to write a tribute to Thatcher, not a fair and balanced critique. You wouldn't happen to be that Mr. Hague would you? Anyway, as far as far as you're other comments are concerned:

" That is a recipe for a revert war and an unreadably equivocal article, not for a balanced one."

Actually the sources I've used so far haven't lead to anything of the sort. Perhaps you should have looked into the history of the article, rather than making ridiculous assumptions for no reason whatsoever apart from to discredit me for adding in fair and balanced information that was sourced, if uncomfortable, about your hero and our "greatest Prime Minister" (I say that, of course, because all British people have the same opinions and think as one). Tirraliuer, if what you want is a tribute to Thatcher and to natter on about all the "great" things she did for Britain (at the expense of the middle & working classes among many more), then you ought to go here. Please, do contribute using NPOV...and maybe stop the unnecessary and constant praise. Alright, you're a Thatcherist, we get it! Sporker (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure who those comments were directed at, but I think all that you've said is fine to insert. It would make it much more NPOV. Of course it would have to be written that way as well. I would agree that this article is definitely POV. I have only just recently really begun working on it, however. Many of the claims - coming from both sides of the isle - were not cited. I have tagged a few of them and removed others, but the information you provided seems to be just what we were looking for. The article definetely needs more cites, and much of the content needs to be restructured, reordered, and reorganized, so it is merely a work in progress.


 * I am against, however, the addition of a criticism section. I worked very extensively on the Ronald Reagan article (now a featured article) and have contributed heavily to Nancy Reagan and Gerald Ford (both featured articles). None of them include criticism sections because according to the MOS, negative views and criticisms should be incorporated into the text and not singled out in their own section.


 * Anyway, I plan on reordering much of the sections and adding citations. These seem like good additions for balance. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a few problems with your edits, Happyme22. You merged two quotes into one, her resignation statement and her no confidence speech, which made it look like they are part of one speech. You also removed her opposition to identity cards, it is a pertinent issue in the UK. You titled a subsection as "post-prime ministerial influence" yet on Maastricht, Balkans, etc. she did not have influence over the UK Gov.--Johnbull (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My appologies, for I thought the quotes were both part of one speech and I am sorry; please feel free to change back. Also, I probably removed the identity card thing because it did not have a citation, which brings me to the greater point that this article needs a lot more cites and without them the information is unverifiable. Plus, the paragraph structures are off and need correcting, and more subsections are needed, for there is a lot of information that is jumbled together. Anwyay, I'm sorry if you feel my edits have been disruptive, but I was only following WP:BOLD. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As a relatively young Midwestern Yank, I certainly don't have the knowledge or stake on this subject as some folks might, but I did check out Sporker's three reference sources. The first Chilean arms sales, seems to have some validity to it.  The second appears to be invalid, only because there is no direct quote.  The statement about Minister Rifkin is quoted properly, but Minister Rifkin is never directly quoted in the article.  There is also no quote from the former Prime Minister's speech in the article.  This cuts into the reliability somewhat. I think it would be better if there was a source for the speech that could be directly quoted, or another article with a direct quote from Minister Rifkin. As for the third, how do you separate a PM criticizing a predecessor and a PM criticizing a former leader of the opposition?  I saw nothing here above a personal opinion.  I also agree that there shouldn't be a separate criticism section;  incorporate that with proper referencing into the article itself. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

1. "The second appears to be invalid, only because there is no direct quote. The statement about Minister Rifkin is quoted properly, but Minister Rifkin is never directly quoted in the article. "

Is this "valid" enough? It does directly quote him. He says that Thatcher was creating...:

"...the impression that Britain and British opinion is somehow prejudiced and anti-European."

I hope the source I provided helps. Thanks, Sporker (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that source is a lot better! I'm pretty apolitical, and was just trying to add some strength to the citation.  Best of luck in your editing! LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for belated response, BTW. I've been busy. Anyhoo, as regards the "Blair" thing, there are plenty of quotes from other politicians praising her enthusiastically, so if criticism is "nothing here above a personal opinion", I certainly don't think praise should be any different. Either way we'll need to be consistent, so either delete the - sourced - quotes from those who praised her, or add the - sourced - quotes from those who oppose her. Therefore, IMO, you're "nothing above a personal opinion" statement lacks a great deal of logic. Would you rather have the article the way it is, with neutrality disputes going on forever (there have been plenty before this one, it has to be said), or would you rather have a balanced, cited, encyclopedia article on her?

And on another point, please be a little more civil...your post sounded more like a snappy demand than a polite request.

Thanks, and I hope my sources help, Sporker (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sporker. This article needs to be neutral, and it's not. I would get working on it, but I too am pretty busy and have been working hard on some other articles. Happyme22 (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think an apology is in order for LonelyBeacon...sorry for my counter - snappiness. And thank you and Happyme22 for your encouragement, I'll get to work soon. Thanks, Sporker (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Falklands War sub-section
This section is one of my biggest dislikes about the "NPOV" issue with the article itself. Here is everything I dislike about it, in it's entirety -

1. Omitting information...again Yes, that old bitch that we call "POV Pushing" has reared her ugly head again. All it says is that there were "some" controversies about the way the War operation was carried out...it does not explain, in any detail, what they were, no matter how many sources can be cited. What about the arms sail to the Argies? Sinking of the Belgrano? They where all controversial feats and, unless someone disputes these sentiments and can come up with a valid reason why they should not be inserted (I sincerely doubt it), then I will get to work on it as soon as I can.

2. Omitting information...round 2 And would a tiny bit more information on how Pinochet helped out Britain in the war really hurt? Frankly it would be a big improvement, considering even Thatcher's supporters don't really argue the authenticity of the Thatcher-Pinochet friendship (politically/personally). Why not?

3. Sources...come on, people! I don't care how well known the war was, we need sources. As aforementioned, would it really be difficult to come up with sources to compliment the sub-section of a very famous military conflict? I'm worried that the section is as small as it is and has as little sources as it does only because someone wants to defend Thatcher (see number 1). Look at that, we're going round in circles now...

4. "Patriotic" POV-Pushing Really now, did every Briton become "patriotic" after Maggie's actions became clear? Frankly, the lefties among us where ashamed when her acts came to light. Plenty of sources can be cited to prove the rightists where enthusiastic, and the leftists, er, weren't. Simple enough. Once again, I advise you all to see numbers 1, 2 and 3. Blimey...

Okay, now bearing in mind the sources that can be cited to prove these things, would we all be ready to take the plunge of adding the info to the article, and doing what we're supposed to be doing, as an encyclopedia: Educating the uninformed about both sides of the argument. Thanks, Sporker (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Structuring of content in PM section
I've tried to focus on combing similar paragraphs in the Prime Minister section, as doing that would greatly enhace the prospect of a better article. I have already moved some paragraphs near others and so forth, but have encountered a major problem. I was reading in the first term section and because two similar paragraphs there dealt with the economy, I created a subsection to title it "Economy". As I continued reading into the second term section, I found that yet another paragraph dealt with the economy. I was going to move it up into the new "Economy" sub-section, but realized that it did not occur during her first term as the other had. This, as you can see, results in a problem when it comes to structuring the content as this page is set up per term and highlights major events. I for one feel that the structure of the PM section needs reviewing. I really do not favor splitting it up into sections such as "domestic policy" and "foreign policy" like in George W. Bush, among others, but it might be good for this page. I feel it is better to highlight major events of the period (see Ronald Reagan). Of course, I suppose the paragraph could be moved up into the first term section as Thatcher's dealings with the economy began there. Does anyone have any suggestions regarding this? Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have restructured it. It is much better, in my opinion, but it still needs work. I am an American, so if I have screwed anything up (especially having to do with the elections) please feel free to fix them. Thanks a lot, Happyme22 (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification
Could someone please clarify what should be her title in the infobox? It stated "The Right Honourable The Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS". It was changed to "The Right Honourable Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher of Kevensten LG, OM, PC, FRS". Which is the correct form? Happyme22 (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Her correct style is "The Rt Hon. The Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS". "Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven" is just plain wrong, since that isn't her title, and whilst articles are titled with the most common name and begin with the legal name, we usually put correct styles in infoboxes. (It used to be that we put former PMs' styles whilst in office in their infoxoes (which would make this one "The Rt Hon. Margaret Thatcher"), but it became too hard to enforce (too many people were going around changing "John Major" to "Sir John Major", "Edward Heath" to "Sir Edward Heath", etc., every couple of days), and the practice seems to have been abandoned in favour of the style they have currently (or had when they died). Proteus (Talk) 21:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it really a good idea to remove the names of all prime ministers from their own info boxes? - Gallo glass  00:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above statement by User:Proteus.--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it's a good idea to have the current title in the infobox, but it seems to me to be bizarre to remove from the infobox any mention of the name by which the person was known when they did the job for which they are best known. The box as it stands is simply wrong: it refers to her role as Prime Minister and her preceding career, and in that time she was not known as "The Baroness Thatcher".

It seemed to me to be a perfectly sound solution to have the name as "Margaret Thatcher" and the peerage title in the honorary_suffix field, but I see that Counter-revolutionary has been going around removing this on the grounds that Baroness Thatcher is not an honorary suffix. That's technically correct, but I think it's missing the big picture, which is that somewhere near the top of the box it should prominently say "Margaret Thatcher". It seems to me to be of little importance what the relevant fields are called (call them fried_locust_sandwich if you like) so long as "Margaret Thatcher" is displayed there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Her name (Margaret Thatcher) is obviously given elsewhere, I think the infobox is the place for the current correct style of title (The Rt. Hon. The...)--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the title of the article is prominent enough. As an American, I'm trying to stay away from this debate, butit sounds as if Baroness Thatcher is her legal name. Wikipedia is about staying current and up-to-date, and User:Counter-revolutionary has pointed out that "The Baroness Thatcher" is her current legal name. Apparently reffering to her in the infobox as "Margaret Hilda Thatcher" is giving false information. Happyme22 (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The baroness title is also given elsewhere, so it could equally be argued that it's not needed here. However, the infobox is not about her current roles, it is mostly about the political offices she held, and when she held those office she was known as "Margaret Thatcher". That name should be displayed prominently in the box, along with the title, just as Counter-Revolutionary suggested on his talk page.
 * Oh, and Happyme22: the infobox implies that there was a Prime Minister of the UK called "The Baroness Thatcher", which there wasn't. It's simply false to appear to claim that there was. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I really don't want to get into an argument at the moment so I'm not going to weigh in any further. Happyme22 (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As BHG has pointed out, she was not Baroness Thatcher when prime minister which the current form clearly implies, Likewise there was no prime minister called Lord Wilson etc. At the time she was in office she was known as Margaret Thatcher which is the form a good number of us believe should be displayed in the Info Box here and on the info box of other prime ministers. - Gallo glass  19:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

At this point I feel I should ask those removing the names of Prime Ministers from Info boxes for some evidence as to which policy guideline requires this name removal? - Gallo glass  19:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm joining this debate having been involved in a similar one at Harold Macmillan. It seems to me that accuracy and readability are paramount. Most readers want to know her main name and that's Margaret Thatcher - honorific can go below/above in smaller letters - which solves the accuracy problem. Whether the info box should be her then name/now name is splitting hairs and the outcome to that particular 'angels on pinheads' debate does not necessarily benefit the reader. They are our priority:) Malick78 (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above statement. What irritates me here is that users are editing the infobox in a manner which seems to be deliberately respectful to Thatcher. Baroness may indeed be her title, but when has it ever been the case that titles replace forenames in infoboxes? It is particularly uninformative in my opinion. This selective use of when it is appropriate to use titles is ridiculous, I'm quite sure that those people promoting the use of Baroness Thatcher as her name would not wish for say Tony Benn to have only 'Mr Benn' as his name in his infobox, or Germaine Greer to be 'Dr Greer'. I think it should just be Margaret Thatcher, perhaps with 'Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven...' below. There are more arguments supporting my viewpoint, many of which have already been listed, the idea that she was never 'Baroness Thatcher' when she was in power etc etc. The peerage should be removed from the main infobox name swiftly - it is incorrect to place it there. AJMW (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a solution to this? I note that the infobox still implies that someone named Baroness Thatcher was PM. Relata refero (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that is the solution. The infobox is to give her current style. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was hoping for a link to a centralised discussion, as I certainly don't see a consensus forming to that effect above. Relata refero (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * C-R excluding a persons name, especially such a well known name is not a solution that is acceptable to the majority of contributors to this discussion. We have no objection to giving her current style, what we have a problem with is removing her given name from what is after all, an Information Box. - Gallo glass  13:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In the UK I get the impression that the media consistently refer to her as either Lady or Baroness Thatcher. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would certainly hope so. However, WP is read by those from outside as well; and we are not limited to the manuals of style used by UK newspapers. Relata refero (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Its most depressing to see that there's been yet another edit war over Prime Ministers names rather than agreeing a format that everyone can live with. C-R will you please explain here which guideline supports you removing Prime Ministers names? For the life of me I have not been able to find any such policy and have asked you to do this before on a number of occasions and am yet to receive a reply. To be honest I was less than impressed by you latest contribution C-R where you stated that "this has been the consensus for ages" when you well know that there is no consensus on this subject with more editors against your position than for it. So lets take this discussion forward now people rather than simply warring which does not move us to any solution at all. - Gallo glass  13:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still concerned about the name in the infobox. given that she is always referred to as Lady or Baroness Thatcher. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)