Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Margaret Thatcher/2

Margaret Thatcher

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Margaret_Thatcher/2&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: relist It appears that there is consensus amongst participants that this artcile meets the GA criteria following recent improvements. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

My belief is that this article was delisted for political reasons unrelated to its quality but rather to its subject. This is a biography article, and not a critical assessment of Margaret Thatcher as a politician; other linked articles do that, and in accordance with summary style this article simply summarises them. Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Margaret Thatcher is one of the most controversial Priome Ministers of the 20th century. I cannot see how completely downplaying negative views of Thatcher, while giving huge amounts of space to her supporters can possibly be considered NPOV. I don't, of course, think the article should be an attack piece, but it confuses neutral with sympathetic point of view. I'd actually say this goes so far as to make the article's educational purpose compromised. I think any reasonable reader of an article on a politician would expect to be able to learn about the triumphs, failures, controversies, and public views of the politician. By concentrating only on the triumphs and positive viewpoints, the article - although it does a very good job at presenting them - fails in its educational remit.
 * I think that one key example is that before it was last delisted from GA, it had three paragraphs describing and analysing the end of her premiership - and was still delisted for concentrating too much on views of her supporters. It now has been cut to one paragraph, basically saying that the policy was unpopular, but not explaining what the policy was, why it was unpopular, and downplaying the riots. Margaret Thatcher was forced out of office for that and other unpopular decisions; that's a pretty significant part of her career to be glossing over, and the other reasons for her fall aren't even mentioned.
 * One might compare three roughly corresponding sections from Premiership_of_Margaret_Thatcher, which, while written somewhat in the essay style, informs the reader concisely why she was forced to leave office:
 * ''Thatcher sought to relieve what she considered the unfair burden of property tax on the wealthiest section of the population, and outlined a fundamental solution as her flagship policy in the Conservative manifesto for the 1987 election. Local government rates were replaced by the community charge—popularly known as the 'poll tax'—which levied a flat rate on all adult residents, with rebates for low earners, but a minimum payment of 20%. [...] The poll tax was introduced in Scotland in 1989 and in England and Wales in 1990. This highly visible redistribution proved to be one of the most contentious policies of Thatcher's premiership. Additional problems emerged when many of the tax rates set by local councils proved to be much higher than earlier predicted. Opponents organised to resist bailiffs and disrupt court hearings of community charge debtors. One Labour MP, Terry Fields, was jailed for 60 days for refusing to pay. [...] As the crisis deepened and the prime minister stood her ground, opponents claimed that up to 18 million people were refusing to pay. Enforcement measures became increasingly draconian. Unrest mounted and culminated in a number of riots. The most serious of these happened on 31 March 1990, during a protest at Trafalgar Square, London. More than 100,000 protesters attended and more than 400 people were arrested.
 * and
 * Thatcher's political "assassination" was, according to witnesses such as Alan Clark, one of the most dramatic episodes in British political history. The idea of a long-serving prime minister — undefeated at the polls — being ousted by an internal party ballot might at first sight seem bizarre. However, by 1990, opposition to Thatcher's policies on local government taxation, her Government's perceived mishandling of the economy (in particular the high interest rates of 15% that eroded her support among home owners and business people), and the divisions opening in the Conservative Party over European integration made her seem increasingly politically vulnerable and her party increasingly divided. A Gallup poll in October 1990 showed that while Thatcher remained personally respected there was overwhelming opposition towards her final initiatives — 83% disapproved of the government's management of the National Health Service, 83% were against water privatisation, and 64% were against the Community Charge, while various polls suggested the party was trailing Labour by between 6 and 11 points. Moreover the prime minister's distaste for consensus politics and willingness to override colleagues' opinions, including that of Cabinet, emboldened the backlash against her when it did occur. 
 * These provide a clear understanding to the reader of the controversies that led to her leaving office, in a neutral way, without whitewashing the issue, whereas the current article fails utterly at this; indeed, since the community charge is covered (badly) in Margaret_Thatcher, and never brought up again, and the other issues aren't really discussed at all, the section on her resignation is nearly incomprehensible.
 * There is no valid argument in Malleus' claims, it's simply an unconcealed attack. 86.** IP (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The "unconcealed attack" was the the one that you just made: "There is no valid argument in Malleus' claims". Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your argument, particularly before you revised it, consists solely of a claim of malfeasance on my part. If you drop your claims about my motivations, your argument would be reduced to a statement that unspecified information is in other articles; you have not provided any defense of the decision to only remove the negative material to other articles. 86.** IP (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are we on the same page? In what way have I revised my claim about the motivation for your delisting? I have stated my opinion very clearly and it has certainly not been changed by your outbursts here and elsewhere. I get it that you don't like Margaret Thatcher, I'm not one of her greatest fans myself, but this is a summary article of her life, not her political career. Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You spend more time attacking me than talking about the article before the change, now you very slightly talk more about the article. You still provide no defense of the article in your opening statement, however, since you fail to even fairly summarise the nature of the dispute.
 * I find your claim that a person only known for her political career should not have a balanced portrayal of that career - but should instead only focus on the positive events - bizarre. The article is, by space, about, what, 75% on her political career? It's just a very unbalanced view of this career. 86.** IP (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I feel that I've been lured into controversy here, and I therefore have no option but to take some very good advice that was offered to me recently, and leave this for others to decide. Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's look at Margaret_Thatcher. Of 9 paragraphs, 5 are positive, 1 negative, one mixed, and two are pretty much completely neutral. Thatcher herself and two of her promoters are given substantial space for quotes, of multiple sentences; Critics have their views presented in a very rushed summary.


 * Parts of this article are quite good, insightful, even. The section on the Miner's strike is an excellent summary of a controversial issue. The writing is excellent. But there's enough sections and parts that show bias and fail to explain an issue that I don't think this could be considered GA. Noone would want this to be turned into an attack piece, but controversial aspects of her career need just as well explained as the uncontroversial, and... Yes, I'm harping on this a bit - but the surprising, catastrophic loss of her career soon after leading her party to the third term is not something you gloss over; it needs explained if the reader is going to understand her career; that's a basic completeness issue (Good article criteria 3). Instead, it's crammed in at the end of Margaret_Thatcher, and that it was one of the reasons for the end of her premiership - one of the defining events in British politics of that period - let alone the other reasons for it - aren't made explicit at all.


 * I don't think this needs a huge amount of work - balance out the sections on views of her career a bit (to make it fit within NPOV); sort out the confusing, non-chronological snarl of political section, and make sure it reflects and, where appropriate, explains the causes of the important milestones in her career (Good Article Criterion 3), and all's fine. But it shouldn't be a good article until it actually comes within the good article criteria, which, at present, it does not.  86.** IP (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. And I'm interested in the views of independent reviewers, as always at community GAR. Geometry guy 02:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The paragraph quoted by 86.** IP above starting "Thatcher sought to relieve ..." certainly paints a free-flowing picture, but at least a couple of points stand out as innacurate even on a quick read. The community charge was in the 1987 manifesto, but nobody cared.  Candidates wern't asked about it on the doorstep and ministers barely mentioned it.  It only became a "flagship"  after the election.  The last couple of sentences are more dangerous; to read them you would think that an increasing level of disaffection culminated in the Poll Tax Riots.  The riots took place before the tax was introduced.  So, a nice story, but rotten history, and a long way from 86.** IP's claim that it "informs the reader concisely why she was forced to leave office".  Mr Stephen (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If the coverage is inaccurate, that's certainly a problem, and needs fixed but it certainly doesn't justify one article's bad coverage to say another is also problematic. One of my biggest concerns is the possibility that good information on Thatcher exists nowhere on Wikipedia. 86.** IP (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, I thought you were suggesting that the paragraph you quoted from Premiership_of_Margaret_Thatcher is better than the one we currently have at Margaret Thatcher. If we accept that it is not (because it is not good history) let us cast it to one side.  One of my concerns is stop embroidered or misremembered information that, to coin a phrase, "everybody knows, so it must be true" masquerading as history.  Mr Stephen (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression it was. If it isn't, BOTH articles have problems. 86.** IP (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh? Why's that then? --John (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it would mean that neither did a good job of neutrally and accurately explaining Thatcher's political career, and hence that such did not appear anywhere on Wikipedia. 86.** IP (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And this is according to your preconceptions or else which reliable sources? --John (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the article Margaret Thatcher fails to do a very good job at explaining things. If the big article is wrong, and the main article doesn't describe her political career in any coherent, chronological way - and also has a legacy section which is a POV mess of nothing but praise. What we have in Margaret Thatcher is "During her premiership Thatcher had the second-lowest average approval rating, at 40 percent, of any post-war Prime Minister. Polls consistently showed that she was less popular than her party.[160] A self-described conviction politician, Thatcher always insisted that she did not care about her poll ratings, pointing instead to her unbeaten election record" - but the article fails to explain why she was disliked, while talking at length in praise of her. 86.** IP (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me put this another way, since people seem determined to nit-pick one example, find one minor flaw, then act as if that proves that everything's fine. She had some of the lowest approval ratings of any serving prime minister of the 20th Century, but, while we get plenty of quotes from her and her supporters - like her attack on the miners - we get almost no quotes from the people she battled against, nor her detractors, and the reasons for her fall are barely explained. And, as I've said before - and noone has commented on - the Legacy section is primarily quotes from her supporters, praising her, with opposition minimised, and this carries across much of the article. 86.** IP (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmm. I was asking about which reliable sources you wish to base this on. That is important, especially on an emotive subject like this one on which everybody has their own opinion. When I was working on this article last year I took a lot of material from Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain. It's a nice source because Marr is a reliable source and is pretty neutral. What reliable source do you wish to base your proposed changes on? --John (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it really matters, so long as it's reliable; As the article's an overview, the exact details don't matter so long as the balance issues are fixed. To be honest, it takes a lot less knowledge and resources to spot balance problems than to make a plan to fix them. 86.** IP (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If you don't have a single reliable source which supports your assertion that there is important material omitted from the article, I cannot comment on your opinion though. --John (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The information about her leaves out the context that allows it to make sense. The section suddenly talks about her fall from public favour, but never explains it. The NPOV issue is explained elsewhere: There's lots of quotes from her supporters (and I suspect the, but her detractors are reduced to a paragraph and a half. There's actually a lot of uncited claims in that section, as well; I'll mark them. 86.** IP (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not seeing that the issues presented rise to the level of delisting the article. Are with issues with the article or with Margaret Thatcher herself? – Lionel (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutrality is a requirement for good articles. Theres also citation issues, completeness issues, and various other problems; I can't see this as passing GA. 86.** IP (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And I can't see how you can justify your opinion without being able to list any reliable sources to back it up. --John (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see how "This fact is uncited", "this isn't in the citation given" can be callously disregarded. 86.** IP (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Make a list, please, of items currently in the article which you contend are not in the citations, then we will have something to talk about. --John (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or you could damn well bother to check the article, where they are tagged. Did you even bother to look at the article before snarking off? 86.** IP (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflictI say the Legacy section is biased. Indeed, many of the citations contain negative content which was simply edited out when they were used. You seemingly disagree. However, you cannot try to claim that making bald assertions - not justified by the citations given - is GA level, so I can't see how you justify it. If you want citations, there are obvious ones. From Premiership of Margaret Thatcher, we could easily fix the problems in the resignation section - "A Gallup poll in October 1990 showed that while Thatcher remained personally respected there was overwhelming opposition towards her final initiatives — 83% disapproved of the government's management of the National Health Service, 83% were against water privatisation, and 64% were against the Community Charge, while various polls suggested the party was trailing Labour by between 6 and 11 points" cited to Gilbert A. Lewthwaite, 'Conservatives meet, reassess Thatcher', Baltimore Sun (9 October 1989), p. A8. Or we fcould uyse the citations in the article to balance out the legacy section, by not only using them for positive material. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7593554.stm says she is "reviled in many areas for dividing the country into "us" and "them" and abandoning communities struggling with huge economic changes to their fate." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3681973.stm has a description of the harm she did to Scotland. Or are these sources only good enough to praise Thatcher, and cannot be used for criticising her? 86.** IP (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Goodness me, that's quite an attitude you have there! Do you find it gets you what you want in your life? It's perfectly normal on this project to ask for supporting evidence before making changes, indeed it's a main principle of our work. Far from being snarky, it allows us to have a meaningful conversation and to see whether we can reach a compromise. I will have a look later today, but meantime it would be appreciated if you can refrain from making assumptions about me. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, this entire thing started off with asn accusation of bad faith against me, and I'm very, very rapidly growing tired of it. I make points, 95% of them are ignored, and then people harp on a single one, and hen proceed to act as if the one being harped on was my only point. It's very, very frustrating, and I can't see how simple facts like "the article failss to explain the reasons for the public dissatisfaction with Thatcher that led to her resignation, and probably should" have been blown into this bullshit of "Oh, you just don't like Thatcher." There's only two sections I find problematic, I've discussed them numerous times, all I've gotten in response are personal attacks and attempts to get me to buy biographies before having the right to say that a section is confusing and poorly-structured, or that sections show a rather readily apparent bias since they choose only the positive facts from the sources to report. And quite frankly, since the article cannot pass GA given the large amount of uncited content, I think this should just close. This whole damn thing seems to be nothing but an attempt to pillory me, in the hopes of not having to fix article problems. 86.** IP (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I had a very careful look at the problems you perceived. I found no evidence of major amounts of uncited material, and I did read the sources in detail. As regards the NPOV problem you complain about I don't see it as such a big deal as you do; I brought a little more negative material in from the same sources. I don't think there is any doubt (and this is reflected in the article) that she was one of the most polarising leaders the UK has had, being seen as either a revolutionary reformer or a reactionary blackguard, depending on who you ask. I don't think it is reasonable to demand that we balance these points of view in a word count or letter count sense; I'd ask you here if there are any major sources or points of view which you feel remain unrepresented in the article as it stands? --John (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it's improved a lot in response to the complaints. I think the major issues are the first Thatcher quote in the Legacy section really needs discussion and contextualization (good or bad), and I still think the organization of the premiership section is unnecessarily awkward. I think this article could stand with a careful check-over; there were some problems, and I doubt they're just in the bits we focused on. 86.** IP (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So basically you think there might be problems but you don't know what they are? Malleus Fatuorum 02:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is undergoing rapid work at the moment. I'll answer once it's done. 86.** IP (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Evidence of bias
Here's a good example, from Margaret Thatcher:

First of all, that's original research.

Secondly, the next line is "But while some of it was right, too much of what happened was based on the wrong values."

This gives the impression Milliband is a Thatcherite, but depends on original research and quotemining; the whole Legacy section has major balance issues, where extreme weight is given to her supporters. 86.** IP (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I did ^not come away with the impression that the article was suggesting Miliband was a Thatcherite.– Lionel (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not evidence of bias, but rather a good example of the cruft contemporary articles attract. It is absurdly overweighted recentism, and I have cut it accordingly. Geometry guy 08:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Basic issues preventing GA status
There seems to be some concerted POV editing going on in the article, and I have flagged a number of issues in connection with this here. The issues mainly relate to WP: WEIGHT, WP: FRINGE, WP: SYNTHESIS, and WP:BLP; on top of this there is irrelevant / trivial material being included and numerous instances of weasley language. I would say that the article is some way from GA status, another concern (though this should be easier to get agreement on) is that the lead does not adequately summarise the article's contents. Jprw (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you've had a very fair hearing in article talk and that all of your concerns have been thoroughly addressed. I would be happy to read your further concerns regarding the lead; as far as I am aware you have not previously shared these concerns. --John (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an absolute travesty. You have singularly and consistently refused to address the specific concerns that I raised. Jprw (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed; noone has agreed with Jprw's claims, and he engages in very bizarre readings of sources. 86.** IP (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Misleading and disingenuous to say the least. It would be more accurate to describe the situation as being a cabal of two (i.e. you and user John) doing their best to duck the issues I flagged, throwing up smokescreens, and having a quite breathtakingly blase attitude towards various WP: BLP tenets, the most serious of which being that you allow a fringe view to misrepresent and potentially libel the subject as a racist. Jprw (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. May I suggest that some of this discussion is asking Wikipedia to do something it cannot do? There are two editors here who perceive bias in the article, but they disagree on the direction of the bias. This is not a problem Wikipedia can resolve. Every editor, indeed every reader, looks at an article from their own standpoint, and sees different things, sometimes completely different things, from those with different standpoints.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project: the purpose of articles is to provide readers with information, including especially facts, and even more especially facts about opinions (which are sometimes even more factual than "facts"). Then we let readers make up their own minds.
 * The neutral point of view is not a neutral evaluation, but a presentation of information that represents significant viewpoints fairly. In an article on a controversial topic (such as this one) there can be as many views on due weight as there are editors, and discussion is needed to find a balance. What matters, however, is that the significant views are represented, and that clearly undue weight is avoided. Beyond that, we have to trust the reader: many have their own strong opinion anyway, and a mere Wikipedia article isn't going to change that. Encyclopedia articles are not written to change opinion, but to ensure that whatever the reader's opinion (no matter how strong or weak), they are more informed after reading the article than they were before. Geometry guy 21:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the recent edits have done great strides in fixing the problems. 86.** IP (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Relist as a Good article. Have been following this for a while now. My feelings are that this version meets the Good article criteria. So does this one and even this one. The NPOV criteria for Good articles is not an exact position, it has a bit of leeway either side. Nothing I am seeing leans too far one way or the other. In my opinion the article should not be NPOV tagged or delisted because of these edits. Further improvements should be dealt with at the article talk page, not here. AIR corn (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Relist, or at least open to a new review. I think the issues are rapidly disappearing. 15:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎86.** IP (talk • contribs)


 * Relist as GA. An important part of the spirit of GA is that articles remain under constant scrutiny and their GA status can change at any time through reassessment. Despite the ups-and-downs of this reassessment, on balance the article has benefited from a "brush up and tidy". I think it should be noted by all that simple maintenance of this article is a challenging task in itself, as the article is a magnet for cruft, recentism and POV pushing. It would be an extraordinary achievement to bring the article to FA status. As for maintaining GA status, a constructive and collaborative approach is a far better way to achieve that goal than a confrontational one. I hope all editors contributing here have seen or see the benefit of that. Geometry guy 23:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Even I blanched at the prospect of taking this article to FAC. My only concern was to make it a decent article, given that Thatcher's inevitable death will be a mega news event, rather than the embarrassment it was before. I'd agree that the article has been improved slightly, but nothing like enough to justify its delisting. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And in case it needs saying, of course I agree with your comments about the need for "a constructive and collaborative approach". Let's hope that there aren't too many more of these individual reassessments. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)