Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Vandalism?

I've just reverted a massive edit by an anonymous user [1] and notice (1) that VeryVerily did something similar from a very similar IP yesterday [2] and (2) that the same IP made some very POV edits to Michael Portillo, according to that IP's talk page; a note on this IP's talk page suggest there is history to this. Just a warning to anyone watching this article. — OwenBlacker 19:52, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism at all, simply setting out the truth about a highly unpopular politician. Pity you can't accept the principle of free speech and have sought to censor my contributions. Your continuing attempt to post the idea that the British economy was 'doing well' by 1983 is an example. Unemployment was rising, bankruptcies were huge and massive swathes of British industry were closing. Not a sign of an economy 'doing well' is it? Furthermore you have edited my comments about Thatcher's shirking war service when Britain's back was against the wall. She should have been contributing to Britain's war effort, not sitting it out at Oxford. — User:195.92.198.72 12:46, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, you think that sentences like "She was also nicknamed the 'Bargain Basement Boadicea' for her small-minded views on national economics." is a quite neutral statement that doesn't make any stand at all at whether her views were right or wrong, right? Changing "Heath supporters" to "sensible people" is a quite neutral statement according to you, and doesn't take an authorial stance on whether it was Heath supporters or Thatcher that was correct, right? Calling the wave of patriotism "misguided" as if the article has any right to pass such judgment? Go to hell, anonymous and cowardly vandal troll -- you are so rabid that you don't have a clue about neutrality of point of view even means. Aris Katsaris 21:59, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
re: Thatcher at Oxford: I belive (though I have been unable to verify) that lots of people atended University during WW2, mostly to train "essential workers" e.g. teachers, doctors, or in Thatchers case, industrial chemists. I think the edit the anon user is advocateing is a) trivial, and b) extreamly loaded and POV. Iainscott 17:38, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Come on, even I, a strident liberal and left-winger, can say that Thatcher's article should never be vandalized and erased. If you wish to voice your opinion, do it on the talk page, and not the article proper, because everyone deserves to be educated as to why Margaret Thatcher, a k a "The Iron Lady," was indeed how you described her. If you truly treasure liberal ideals, then you should feel ashamed for attempting to thwart one's ability to educate one's self about the horrors of conservatism. And education is a liberal value, so you are basically raping your own mother, i.e., liberalism. And I absolutely hate the word "bitch"; do not use it, for it is the product of a sexist, misogynist, stereotype. You, my friend, are the enemy of liberalism, for you apparently hate the values for which it stands; and are the enemy of the left, for you attempted to remove from public view the horrors she, and conservatism, committed. --KingGeekoid 15:38, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
I've attempted to revert to the most recent legitimate version to overcome a revision from an apparent mental illness sufferer, but it seems I've failed. As someone who greatly admires Baroness Thatcher, and recognises the debt of gratitude owed to her bt the British People, I do hope someone can fix this page. Thanks. --Jamesgibbon

Gibbon, you are evidently deluded if you think that opponents of Thatcher are 'mental illness sufferers'. You are a highly biased supporter of Thatcher, as you have yourself declared; your contributions should therefore be judged in this light and your credibility as a serious and objective commentator is now damaged beyond repair.

- idiot,

In fact my comment was addressed specifically to an individual who had vandalised the page. jamesgibbon

Many thanks to the kind individual who has restored this page and overcome the most recent act of vandalism inflicted upon it :) Jamesgibbon 00:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is now a vandalism war in which factual additions that have not imbalanced the article's perspective are being removed within hours in a politically biased way. The article can be placed under a neutrality challenge, you know. Anyone who looks at the history of my attempts to revert the vandalisms can see that they have left in place all points that others have added. That's what we must do: not remove facts that others have contributed, both pro and anti Thatcher. 83.67.65.99 Aug 4. I retract this- there isn't a vandalism war going on, there's a bug in Wikipedia. What happened was I logged into the article quite normally and what came up was an old version.(??) - 2 minutes later!

An observation on your article on Margaret Thatcher

Having just read this article I can see why people are editing what has been previously written, this can only be described as a view of the Thatcher government through "rose tinted spectacles". Having lived through her years of power, from the age of 12 to 23, I can understand the anger of other people, who you are claiming have been "vandalising the text". I think you need to revise the text to show a more balanced point of view on this political figure, or continue to suffer constant attacks from those with left wing views, regardless to how deluded the pro-Thatcher lobby think they are. To continue to revert and protect the current text, will only provoke further attacks from the trolls.

So we should include the deluded views of the marxist vermin and trade unionists who believed that the country was doing just fine with a 3-day work week and collapsing economy prior to Thatcher rescuing the nation?
So we should try to maintain the Wikipedia standards and promote a fair and balanced article regardless of political stance or general bitterness or trolls.
(Now referring to the first writer): It is hard to really change an article when one tries to use facts. I actually think the article strives to be fair and properly referenced (and I'm about as left-wing as it gets without becoming indoctrinated). I have contributed to the article because there was an opportunity to improve the article. That's what it is all about. This is a biography of a person which is supposed to be as NPoV as we can get. You can change this article if you can add or change it appropriately with clear referencing when necessary.
The introduction says, "Undoubtedly one of the most significant British politicians in recent political history, she has tended to attract both strong support and strong opposition." I don't think you can argue with that. She has been significant from both respects.
Early life and education - seems just factual
1950 - 1970 Politcial career - again straight forward facts. She comes over very positively as well to my point of view.
Heath's Govt - some unflattering comments about her.
Leader of the Opposition looks fairly factual.
79-83 as PM - still see only general facts.
I could continue but it will be the same again. Nothing says that Maggie is wonderful nor that she is despicable. Regardless of your PoV I think that if you want facts this is a pretty good article. I do believe that there are things missing from the article which may be included in future or that I would like to see included particularly on the miner's strike and armaments but they could only be added when strong (essentially irrefutable) evidence is refernced. However, someone who knew little about Thatcher would get a hint of both sides of her lovers and detractoes and could start to form their own opinions based on this.
The article defacers tend to either 1) Not understand the purpose of an encyclopedia or 2) Like to produce some witty vandalism (and some of it has been wonderfully tongue in cheek and well done)! (Not that i want to encourage them at all.)
Candy 22:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

re: anon

user:195.92.198.72 who also appears to be user:195.92.198.74 and user:195.92.198.75 (and they might like to get themselves a login, and sign their comments with 4 tildes, thus: ~~~~) has reverted this page 5 times in the past 24 hours...

If they have substantive information to add to the article, perhaps they might discuss it here first, rather than just reverting to an extreamly POV version? Iainscott 17:34, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My my Aris, what a brave man you are... hurling abuse at me on an internet forum? Your comments about a 'wave of patriotism' tell me you know little if anything about Thatcher, and your continuing belief that record bankrupcies, unemployment at a level unknown since the 1930s, British cities in flames are all signs of a country 'doing well'? Go back to school sonny.

Contradiction

The article currently contradicts itself. Way back in 2002 I added the bit about her being dubbed the Iron Lady by the Russians. Someone has expanded that slightly and stated that the appellation originated with the Soviet Defence Ministry newspaper Red Star, but someone else had put in the first paragraph that it originated with Radio Moscow. Clearly this inconsistency within the article needs to be resolved. Mintguy (T) 17:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I added the reference to 'Red Star' after getting the information from newspapers at the time of Thatcher's original "guns before butter" speech. However it's not a full contradiction as it was 'Red Star' which coined the phrase, and Radio Moscow which publicised it. Dbiv 12:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kesteven

I'm surprised Iain Scott has reverted the references to Kesteven. Looking at Archive2, it finishes with an agreement to refer to Kesteven. Besides, calling her Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven is hardly wrong, because she is often referred to as that. As far as calling it the 'Barony of Thatcher' - just where did that come from. It looks naff, and I've never seen the 'of Thatcher' bit in common usage. I propose (1) mentioning Kesteven somewhere in the article; (2) Replacing 'Barony of Thatcher' with something sensible; or (3) as an alternative to (2), deleting that row of the table on the left hand side completely. What do others think? Jongarrettuk 13:35, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kesteven is indeed mentioned: see Margaret_Thatcher#Post-political career. I agree that "Life Barony of Thatcher" sounds naff, but I think (though I dont pretend to be an expert) that is closer to being correct than "Life Barony of Kesteven" because the latter is certainly wrong (see 5th paragraph Styles and titles of peers). I have changed it to "Life Peerage: Baroness Thatcher", though for all I know that might be stubly wrong as well! If we cant work out something which is both acurate and looks sensible, I support removeing the row: the information is already in the article. Iain 15:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'd missed the post-political career reference to Kesteven (oops) (I think it should be there, but I agree, once is enough). I for one am happy with "Life Peerage: Baroness Thatcher". If anyone has objections to it, I agree, let's remove the row. Jongarrettuk 17:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It is perfectly correct to refer to the "Barony of Thatcher," like the "Dukedom of Norfolk," the "Viscountcy of Stansgate," etc. The usage of "of" in "Barony of X" does not imply that "of" should be used in "Baron[ess] X"; certainly, "Barony Thatcher" would be incorrect. Consequently, "Life Barony of Thatcher" would be appropriate.
The "of Kesteven" phrase should not be used when referring to Lady Thatcher. It is a territorial qualification, a remainder of feudal times, and exists in the case of every Baron or Viscount. It is not, properly speaking, a part of the title.
Removing a row merely because the information is already in the article does not seem reasonable to me. Shall we also remove the rows stating her name, her period in office, her predecessor, her date of birth, her place of birth and her political party (i.e. the entire table) because all these are mentioned in the article as well?
BUT... I think I may have found an acceptable solution: "Life Barony (Thatcher)". -- Emsworth 23:17, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Arnt all life peers barons? in which case "Life peerage (Thatcher)" might read better (though obviously how it reads is secondary to accuracy) Iain 08:30, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What about just "Life Barony"? Jongarrettuk 08:42, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
At the moment, yes, but there have been plenty of life peerages of other ranks granted throughout history. Proteus (Talk) 11:14, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To quote Burke's Peerage, she is styled "THE BARONESS THATCHER, of Kesteven, Co. Lincoln". Her peerage is not geographical, so it is incorrect to use "Baroness of Kesteven" - but neither is it correct to use "Baroness of Thatcher". The "of [placename]" is generally only used formally, or when distinguishing between two peers with the same surname. Whilst the word barony can be used to describe either the rank or the domain of a baron(ess), it confuses the issue when used with a non-geographical title - if anything, it should "the Barony of Thatcher, of Kesteven".
Yes, all life peers are barons (the Life Peerage Act states that they "rank as a baron under such style as may be appointed by the letters patent". As for there having been other life peerages granted previously, thats not really correct: the British peerage became hereditary simply because the heirs of deceased peers challenged the Crown in court over the right to inherit the Writ of Summons to Parliament - and won. Its for this very reason that the Life Peerage Act had to be passed. ThievingGypsy 20:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To address your points in order: 1) She is "Baroness Thatcher, of Kesteven in the County of Lincolnshire", but she isn't styled that, as territorial designations are never used in that way. She's simply styled "The Baroness Thatcher" or "The Lady Thatcher" (as Burke's shows when it gives her address). 2) No one is suggesting she is "Baroness of Thatcher" - she does, however, hold the Barony of Thatcher, just as the Earl Spencer holds the Earldom of Spencer and the Marquess Conyngham holds the Marquessate of Conyngham. 3) The "of [placename] in the County of [county]" bit of her peerage is never used, formally or informally, nor is it for any peer. Those life peers who are "Lord/Lady Surname of Place" are "Baron(ess) Surname of Place, of Place in the County of Loamshire". (Look up Lady Kennedy of The Shaws in Burke's for an example of how they show this.) 4) The word "barony" (or "viscountcy", or "earldom", or whatever) is often used with non-territorial titles. A barony in this sense is simply a titular dignity, and has nothing to do with domains or territory (unlike, say, a Scottish barony). 5) All life peers created under the Life Peerages Act and Appellate Jurisdiction Act have been barons and baronesses, but life peerages were created for centuries before that, the most recent being the Earldom of Brandon created for the Dowager Lady Athenry in 1758. (I suggest you read our article on life peers.) Proteus (Talk) 21:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Quite right, but important additional point, to correct a comment above, is that a Baron(ess) is known as Lord or Lady X or Baron(ess) X of placename. "Baron X" would be incorrect in a British context. The use of "Baroness X" is however now acceptable to distinguish a woman who has got the title in her own right in contrast to Lady X, Baroness of Y the wife of Lord X, Baron of Y. Dainamo 14:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
(a) I'm not sure what point of mine you're supposedly "correcting", and (b) I mainly have no idea what you're talking about, but from what I can make out it seems largely nonsensical. There is absolutely no difference in form of address between holders of territorial titles and holders of surname titles, or between holders of "X" titles and holders of "X of Y" titles. Proteus (Talk) 16:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not certain what ThievingGypsy is referring to when he talks about heirs of deceased peers challenging the crown, but the earlier life peerages referred to were created by letter patent, not by writ of summons. Notable instances include the Dukedom of Portsmouth, created for Charles II's mistress, or the Dukedom of Hamilton created for the husband of the de jure Duchess of Hamilton - both in the 17th century, long after anyone stopped making writs of summons (at least on purpose). john k 22:48, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Apologies for Topological_Geometrodynamics

(William M. Connolley 08:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Oops!. The link to Topological_Geometrodynamics was a mistake of my browsers rather than a subtle attempt by me to link in irrelevance. Sorry.


Terms

What's all this about "terms"? British PMs don't have them and never have. Proteus (Talk) 16:31, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe its just me, but I find that the only two occurrences of the word term in this article are not in reference to the official term of office. Maybe this has been corrected since you made the post. →Iñgōlemo←(talk) 05:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Poll Tax

In the 'Third Term' section the article states: "Introducing the charge one year early led to accusations that Scotland was a 'testing ground' for the tax. Although untrue (Thatcher believed the policy would be popular and the Scots would benefit from it a year earlier) this led to a sharp decline in the popularity of the Conservative party in Scotland."

This is conjecture at best. There were accusations at the time that implementing the policy in Scotland was testing the water, however this is isn't necessarily untrue. The article should stick to the facts and not speculate on Thatchers intentions.

One thing is without doubt: Thatcher thought Poll Tax was a good thing that would be much more popular than the existing rates. Nor is the statement speculation - she discusses the Poll Tax and the intentions behind it in some detail in her autobiography, so stating her intentions is not speculation. She gives a number of reasons why Scotland went first. In particular she noted that Scotland was well overdue a rates review (which would have been unpopular too). Unfortunately my copy is at my parents' house, but I think from memory that she is explicit in stating that Scotland wasn't seen as a testing ground (though almost every Scot thought otherwise!). Perhaps someone with a copy more to hand could check the point. jguk 19:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What Thatcher says in her autobiography is surely not unimpeachable as an accurate reflection of her views several years earlier. She has every reason to obfuscate and put herself in the best light possible. john k 23:06, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Phrase it 'In her autobiography, Thatcher says her intentions were....' Then the reader is put on notice. jguk 07:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, seems like we should state what people thought it meant at the time, and then state Thatcher's explanations in her memoirs (and any other explanations that may have been offered up). john k 08:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A worthwhile source here is Nigel Lawson's memoirs The View from Number 11. Lawson was an opponent of the introduction of the Poll Tax (the index to TVfN11 has the entry Community Charge - see Poll Tax in contrast to Thatcher's Poll Tax - see Community Charge). According to Lawson's account the pressure for rating reform started in Scotland following the rating revaluation of, IIRC, 1985. Lawson says that he pushed for enactment first in Scotland. There seems to have been an element of pique in this. In Lawson's view the minority Scottish Conservatives had foisted the Poll Tax on the national party. In effect Lawson was saying to them: If you think its such a good idea, then try it at home first. -- Alan Peakall 18:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Positive

This article seems too positive to me making her out to have been a good leader where she was quite the opposite. I'm not saying it should be against her but it should be more neutral and not so in her favour. Josquius

I claim responsibility for writing most of it, and I'll be in serious trouble if anyone finds out I've written a positive article about Maggie! Perhaps you could identify examples? Dbiv 03:19, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I can say that I found the article to be pretty darn well balanced. I didn't see any editorialising, or subjective adjectives when none should be included. I can imagine that some of the economic difficulties under her Prime Ministership aren't very well covered, but I don't think that that's a major problem. Overall, this is a good article. (And I am very much an anti-capitalist anti-authoritarian sort of chap myself, so you can't accuse me of pro-Thatcher bias!) Iñgōlemo(talk) 07:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Just to even it out a bit lets add the word bitch a few times. 24.80.61.180 08:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent article - best I've seen on Wikipedia. I wanted to add the fact that Thatcher seems to be held in much higher esteem in the United States than she is in the UK, but leave it to others to determine whether that is relevant. But a comparison to Thatcher would not generally be seen as odious, and in fact would probably be seen as positive in the US as a whole, which seems not the case in the UK, and is interesting that a political leader would get more respect outside her own country

The impression that Baroness Thatcher is (or was) held in general low regard throughout the UK is a misleading one; she won three General Elections in a row, after all - so while she never had a majority of the popular vote, she was certainly the most popular political leader of her time. She is certainly held in high esteem, reverence even, in some quarters. Even left-wing political commentators (not all of them by any means, but some) acknowledge that she was a great leader, even if they fail to understand that her policies were necessary and successful. Jamesgibbon 23:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

She should have noted that the Poll Tax led to a rebellion in the middle ages where rich people were killed. - A guy who likes Wikipedia

Gibbon above has been adapting the text to bias towards Thatcher, whom he evidently reveres, to the point of calling some of her detractors 'mental'. There are those who might accuse HIM of being a bit odd, ignoring as he does Thatcher's destruction of the British economy and deliberate creation of record unemployment. Suggest his comments and additions are treated with great care...

Well, if people are going to say that she was a bad leader, then we lose the whole point of Wikipedia. I happen to like her, but am not about to edit the article in that way. People (in my opinion) just need to grow up and give the facts; this can be difficult to do but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out some of the edits were biased.

Baroness

Seems to me that the first paragraph under Post-political career needs a tweak. It implies that Denis Thatcher received his baronetcy after Maggie was created Baroness Thatcher. Should be made clear that it was the other way round (I think) that Maggie was then Lady Thatcher, and is Baroness Thatcher because she now has that title in her own right. (Yes, I know she can also be referred to as 'The Lady Thatcher', but a Baronet's wife would not be correctly referred to as 'Baroness'.) Quill 23:33, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fixed to be in accodance with the Denis Thatcher article. Ddye 02:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposed article split

This article at 33KB is overweight and needs to be split in 2. Please put your proposals for how to do so here. Hopefully there will be a consensus by Sunday, so that I can then split the article. I am putting a note to this affect at the top of the articcle so readers can participate in the debate. Squiquifox 21:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article is not overweight and does not need splitting. Enforcing a split would disrupt a good article. Dbiv 22:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Internet Explorer for Mac (including the most recent version) has a hard limit of 32K on text fields. So if someone edits the article and saves it using IE for Mac, half of the article will disappear. There to guarantee editorial freedom for Mac users we must split the article. I am not trying to get consensus on whether to split the article, but on how to do so. If you don't like the 32KB warning try and get the policy changed. How do we split this article?--Squiquifox 21:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Half of the last four featured articles were longer than 32 KB (Economy of the Republic of Ireland 36 KB, Albert Einstein 44 KB). Nobody split them. Curious, huh? Those who must use a deficient Web browser (it's not like there aren't better alternatives for the Mac) and have not figured out how to edit one section of an article at a time may want to focus on the many articles that are smaller than 32 KB. The requirement for a split of a 33 KB article is simply not there, and I tend to agree with Dbiv that it would disrupt the article. Rl 21:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to know how you're planning on enforcing your demands. Proteus (Talk) 23:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The idea that articles need to be split after 32KB is obsolete. It is certainly not a hard rule, and a 33 KB article is perfectly appropriate. john k 00:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I have brought the issue of whether articles should be split/slimmed or not to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).Squiquifox 02:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

well, if you split the article, I will just un-split it. It would make it a biased article, but people seem to be biased about her and split over her so maybe we should split it??!!

Right Honorable

While I'm not familiar enough with British traditions to change Dbiv's edit, Forms of adress in the United Kingdom is one among several other pages that says that 'The Rt. Hon.' is proper for Baroness, and that the PC post-nominal is used by peers precisely because they are already entitled to 'The Rt. Hon.' due to their peerage rank. Ddye 04:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Although I'm sure there are individual peers who break convention, PC is generally only used when The Rt. Hon. is difficult to use before the name. Only one should be used. Timrollpickering 10:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Intro

I've tried to rectify a couple of aspects of the intro that seemed to lack accurate statement of the issue or to clarify the nature and scale of her impact. I haven't done much but I think it did need a few changes, could someone take a look and check it out? Thanks FT2 09:10, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me, though I've made a (very minor) change to your changes. Good work.
James F. (talk) 13:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Friendship with Pinochet

I once heard Thatcher was very friendly with Pinochet, the right-wing, brutal dictator of Chile, and that she tried to protect him from going on trial. If this really is true, then I believe it should be mentioned somewhere.

See under the section Post political career. Iain 09:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW. Under the picture of Thatcher and Pinochet it says that Pinochet is "former ex-president of Chile". Is he president once again or has someone else taken over as ex-president?--Nwinther 13:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Excessive profanities?

What on earth are sentences like "again, draw your own conclusions...was she talking to Nancy at old Ron's funeral? I think not!", "Evil witch" or "and f***** everyone in the ass" doing in a supposedly neutral article? Especially if the talk page marks it as "one of the best articles that the Wikipedia community has produced"...

's called vandalism - being an encyclopedia that any one can edit, such things happen, but are generally dealt with rapidly. See the edit history [3] for the extent of it. :) --zippedmartin 06:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


And the graduate of Oxford University Margaret Thatcher as prime Minister was DENIED AN HONORARY DOCTORATE FROM OXFORD which is a traditional honor for a Prime Minister and especially alumnus - the faculty and dons voted to deny her this honor and it was at the time proof of her very dubious spproval by British society - Oxford is also conservative politically - and I do not have the exact dates but I can find them - also there is a brilliant cartoon of David Levine in the New York Review of Books cariacturing the defrocked alumnus at the time - also she sluffed it off and hissed some political red baiting at the ungrateful dons - they stood firm and it was polled and found that they highly disapproved and more highly disliked her to the point of derision - they found her policies like her manner nasty inhumane and inhuman - and for all her ice cream preservatives,bad chemistry all around.She was denied a traditonal and great honor- seeing that such an honor goes to those who actually contribute to culture rather than punishng it.

Mad cow disease and liberalization

I once heard that the beef industry in Britain was destroyed due to Thatcher's curtailing government control over the farm industry. I know it may sound like a stretch, but the professor did do such a good job supporting his accusation that the claim stuck in my brain since then. I would encourage fellow wikipedians to research on it. Is there any chance of such a claim sticking in this article, or will it be purged immediately?

I appreciate that some people saw Thatcher as a mad cow but please don't go accusing her of causing Mad Cow's disease.

Wow

I just wanted to say this article is excellent. Kudos to the editors!--JiFish 21:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Mrs. Sir Mr. Margaret Denis Thatcher, &c.

I noticed at one point on her list of titles, pre-Privy Counsel, the IL being listed as 'Mrs. Denis Thatcher'. Now I believe in formality as much as anyone else, but given the family dynamic alone, much less common courtesy and convention in a more liberal era, I changed it to 'Mrs. Margaret Thatcher'. 'Mrs' still reflects her marraige, as does the surname change — we needn't belittle an objectively major female political figure by adhering to the impression that she ever referred to herself with her husband's forename. Wally 04:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The 'family dynamic' that you assume is not the case. Biographies of both spouses suggest that they were traditional in their view of a woman's role. Margaret Thatcher (her professional and informal style) would have been Mrs. Denis Thatcher for formal style. To call her Mrs. Margaret Thatcher in a formal context indicates that she is widowed. To summarise: She may have been called "Margaret Thatcher" but her title was "Mrs. Denis Thatcher". I have changed the article. Should we explain this in a footnote to avoid offending [insert inoffensive word for "revisionist liberals typed with a smile" here]? --Theo (Talk) 07:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's not 'belittling' to use a woman's traditional style. Sure, it's sex discrimination, makes it seem like the husband "owns" the wife, blah, blah... but it's still her official formal title. Besides, I doubt many reasonable women would take it as discrimination if they were addressed as Mrs. Denis Thatcher... they would understand it's just traditional and is not taken to mean ownership. Besides, if we change Margaret's style list to "Mrs. Margaret Thatcher," then we might as well also change Princess Michael of Kent to HRH Princess Marie-Christine of Kent. (if you didn't know, that's wrong) Matjlav 14:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I did know it's wrong, but thanks for the patronizing note in any case.
A footnote would, I think, be wise to avoid the same confusion in which I was taken — and in general I'm quite up with my styles. It would be helpful just for the purposes of clarification. Wally 21:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Listing of full titles

I recently added a list of full titles to the Early Life section, and it was deleted with a comment of "yuck." To avoid that happening again, would anyone mind if I put a full list of titles in the "Titles and honours" section? I'm going to put it in there, and if anyone wants, they can delete it and give me a comment in here. Matjlav 18:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For a start, it's not her legal name ("Her Ladyship" certainly isn't part of her legal name, and the territorial designation isn't either]]. Also, apart from the peerage format, it's just the full version of all the post-nominals already listed at the beginning of the article. If people want to know how peers' names are given in legal documents, they can read the Peerage series. Listing the full titles in every article on a peer is just silly, and a complete waste of space. Proteus (Talk) 22:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Title in the beginning of the article

Lady Thatcher is currently called "Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher." The listing of her surname, and being called Baroness Thatcher at the same time, seems a little bit redundant to me. I looked it up, and the London Gazette refers to her as "Margaret Hilda, Baroness THATCHER". [4] It's my understanding that if a life peer's surname is the same as the name of the barony, then "<givenname(s)>, Baron/ess <barony/surname>" is all that's necessary. Does anyone think otherwise?

  • Oops, forgot to sign. Matjlav 19:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's her legal name, certainly, but then the legal name of all peers is "<Honorific> <First Names>, <Rank> (of) <Title>)". It is, however, encyclopaedic practice to include the surname, otherwise we'd have to start the article on Edward Fitzalan-Howard, 18th Duke of Norfolk "Edward William, Duke of Norfolk", which is hardly helpful. Proteus (Talk) 21:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Massive Vandalism

I reverted and added a temporary vandalism protection to the page until administrators can decide what to do.

This vandal was using three different IP addresses and vandalized the page 10 times.

User:Ted-m

Ten times isn't that much, and each vandalism attempt was reverted within three minutes each time. I don't think page protection is warranted in this case. JYolkowski // talk 01:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, people will get bored.

1979-1983, final paragraph

I've modified the final paragraph of the 1979-83 section. Most notably perhaps, I changed the reference to the 'Falklands Effect' to a reference to the 'Falklands Factor', which is by far the more commonly used term. I've removed an implication that she would not have won the 1983 General Election with a landslide without it evident in the comment that it "enabled her" to win it; I find this contentious. I've observed instead that it "undoubtedly helped the Conservatives to achieve a landslide victory". I've also changed the comment that she sent the naval task force "immediately" to "within days" which is a little more precise. I've also tried to make the language and grammar work a bit better. Much respect to previous authors and editors though; it's a good read and a balanced piece.

Previous:

On 2 April 1982, Argentine forces invaded the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas to Argentinians), a British territory claimed by Argentina. Thatcher immediately sent a naval task force to the Falklands, which defeated the Argentines, resulting in a wave of patriotic enthusiasm for her personally, at a time when her popularity was at an all time low for a serving Prime Minister. It enabled the Conservatives to achieve a landslide victory of the Conservatives in the June 1983 general election, in what was described as the 'Falklands Effect'. Her 'Right to Buy' policy of allowing residents of council housing to buy their homes at a discount did much to increase her popularity in working-class areas, although this meant that a housing shortage was to develop for those unable to do so.

Current:

On 2 April 1982, Argentine forces invaded the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas to Argentinians), a British territory claimed by Argentina. Within days, Thatcher sent a naval task force to recapture the Islands. The ensuing military campaign was successful, resulting in a wave of patriotic enthusiasm for her personally, at a time when her popularity was at an all-time low for a serving Prime Minister. The 'Falklands Factor', as it came to be known, undoubtedly helped the Conservatives to achieve a landslide victory in the June 1983 general election. Her 'Right to Buy' policy of allowing residents of council housing to buy their homes at a discount did much to increase her popularity in working-class areas, although this ultimately caused a housing shortage for those unable to do so.

- jamesgibbon 00:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Privatisation

"Privatisation has since been exported across the globe; a testament to its success in rejuvenating moribund government controlled industries while substantially improving the government's balance sheet."

Is that entirely NPOV? Should this be rephrased, or deleted? Dr Gangrene 11:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It certainly isn't NPOV. Not all privatisations worked - BR for example - and it's caused unrest in other countries. I think it should be taken out. -- Arwel 12:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I think it should remain. To deny the success of Thatcher's privatisations in the terms expressed in the above quote is pointless. Whether it's been similarly popular in other countries isn't really relevant here - the fact that it was tried in the first place following the British example is undoubtedly a testament to its success in the UK. jamesgibbon 12:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
The fact that other countries copied privatisation after Britain did it first is not a testament to its success, whether in the UK or anywhere else; it is merely a testament to the fact that other governments liked the idea just as much as Thatcher did. Whether privatisation is successful or not is an extremely contentious point, and a sentence claiming it is successful does not belong in an encyclopedia, which is supposed to report facts, not opinions. Similarly, many would disagree with the claim that privatisation "rejuvenates moribund government controlled industries while substantially improving the government's balance sheet", since that, too, is a matter of opinion, not fact. Dr Gangrene 22:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
OK. Well - I do feel that Thatcher's privatisations in particular were unambiguously successful both for the industries they rejuvenated and their customers. But I agree that the sentence needs to be reworded to be less POV about privatisation in general. jamesgibbon 21:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I second Arwel and Dr Gangrene. This should be deleted or rephrased and moved to the privatisation page. --Kingbot 14:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Causes of the size of the 1983 landslide

  • the removal of the SDP members was a cause for the movement to the left - there was no counterbalance to prevent it as they'd left!
hmmm - I clearly remember their departure being caused by the movement to the left! jamesgibbon 21:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, whatever the exact series of events this sentence or two reads well to my mind - the outcomes are described accurately. Thanks. Sliggy 18:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • We can only surmise as to whether the communication difficulties 83.67.65.99 perceives in the SDP-Liberal Alliance were significant. The observable, NPOV electoral fact is that the Alliance split the left and not the right. Combined with first past the post and this is another reason for the landslide. Note that the Alliance got ~24% of the vote in 1983, Labour ~27%, but the Conservatives remained at roughly the same as 1979 at ~43%
    • Damn forgot to sign. The above by me Sliggy 19:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • This isn't NPOV, it is the result of analyzing swings in a naive way, by assuming that the same voters were involved, and that changes in vote share were caused by single movements in the same direction. The observable results do NOT necessarily mean that 16 percentage-points worth of voters switched from Labour to the Alliance and that most Conservative voters stayed put. It could mean that that many Conservative voters switched to the Alliance, and that was counter-balanced by a nearly-equal swing from Labour to Conservatives. AIUI there *was* a significant degree of straight Labour-Conservative switching among certain electoral groups in 1983, and even more in 1987, and I'm told of opinion poll evidence that suggests that Alliance voters were evenly divided between Labour and Conservatives as their second preference. 87.113.70.192 13:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The NPOV is simply that the Conservatives benefited from a split opposition, enabling them to win a landslide on a minority of the vote. Why the opposition vote was split, and where it would have gone had it not been split, is not something that can be determined simply by looking at the changes in national vote shares of each party. A much deeper psephological analysis is necessary for that. Saying the Alliance vote "split the left" is POV --- it is only one possible explanation, and not one held by all psephologists. 87.113.70.192 14:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to log in. The above two comments were written by Flagboy 14:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

But it's not an observable fact that they presented a less attractive option to right wing voters than left,+ that POV has been inserted several times today. and James, that's right, the SDP split had to happen after the changes that caused it. The left takeover with the swing to CND and union-dominated leadership elections happened at the 1980 Labour conference. 83.67.65.99

And of course it could have led Labour voters who switched to Alliance in 1983 to have switched to the Tories had the third party not existed in 1983. Flagboy 14:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Demonised figures and abberations :D

83.67.65.99; I've once again removed your comment about ascribing the 1983 election victory to the Falklands Factor being fashionable, on account of Thatcher being a "demonised figure". I tend to empathise with your point of view on that, but it is, nonetheless, definitely a point of view I'm afraid. Regards, jamesgibbon 12:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: the above opinion was reinstated, so I've removed it again. I'd be grateful if other editors would keep an eye on this, or please comment if you disagree with the removal jamesgibbon 21:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

and I would be grateful if they would also keep an eye out for the word "may", used towards any other reasons than that stupid Falklands myth for the 83 win. "may" is pejorative hence is POV. What's not a POV is to say on any page that any figure was "demonised by her opponents" followed by a sceptical look at the opponents' case not being firmly grounded. But the reason why I keep reinstating it is that the removals always return the text to POV-wrongly crediting the Falklands for the election win. If you want the removal to stand, you've got to find a rewrite that won't do that. 83.67.65.99 2 hours later

I've removed your opinion from the article again. I suggest you solicit some support for it here if you intend to keep reinstating it. A "sceptical look" at a particular case is manifestly POV, and so is the notion that she was "demonised by her opponents". Secondly, I personally do not solely credit the Falklands Factor for the 1983 election win, but there really is no credible doubt that it contributed substantially to it, and I was aware of that at the time, even as an enthusiastic Conservative supporter. The text does NOT "credit the Falklands" for the election win, it merely observes that it is regarded as substantially contributing to it, and that's perfectly true, whether you regard it in that light or not. Finally, note that some of your contribution was amended only because it was awkwardly worded, not because it was POV. jamesgibbon 10:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

(following latest edit by 83.67.65.99): OK - I think the present version is much better, but it still has a tendentious feel to me - it still sounds like it's intended to support a particular point of view to a degree. I'll leave it alone for now though, and let other editors express an opinion or make changes. Thanks for the compromise at any rate. On a personal note, as a great admirer of Margaret Thatcher I'm amazed to find myself defending NPOV against a pro-Thatcher editor here :D - cheers jamesgibbon 13:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Intro

I don't like the intro.

How about:

The Right Honourable Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS (born 13 October 1925), is a British stateswoman who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990 and Leader of the Conservative Party from 1975 to 1990, the only woman to date to hold those positions.

Thougts?

Acegikmo1 03:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Like the first half. 83.67.65.99

I don't like thw whole stateswoman title. This is NOT a neutral description. She's a British politician, or more accurately, a "retired British politician." Fishhead64

Probably technically not retired as she still has a right to vote in the House of Lords and has some influence on the internal politics of the Official Opposition. On the other hand, she almost certainly receives her MPs and PMs pensions. Depends whether you see politicians as 'professional' or not...! Stateswoman is obviously wrong in a UK context - sounds like an Americanism? JDancer 18:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

House of Lords

I've clarified the references to the House of Lords, as Hansard shows that she hardly ever speaks in debate there - only three times in fact (on the Scott Report, Hong Kong and Pinochet). [5]

Lady Thatcher's picture - time for a change?

I'm wondering whether the main picture - at the head of the article - is the best one to use for Lady Thatcher. I can't help but feel it doesn't go all too well with the rest of the article.

Might I recommend a discussion to see whether we can find a better one. Personally I find the picture too boring, and lacklustre. The article itself is superb, and clearly one of the premier articles on wikipedia, which has managed very successfully to avoid POV for a figure who arouses very strong political emotions!

However without POV, I think we should consider replacing it with a more iconic one for Lady Thatcher, like one of her more famous ones addressing the Conservative Party at a conference or something. I think an iconic figure like Lady Thatcher should have a more iconic picture, if you see my meaning, regardless of her controversies, and her politics to improve the article further still.

Thoughts?--Jason Hughes 17:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the selection of main pic could be improved. I'll have a look around and see if I can find something. jamesgibbon 15:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

We should be looking for a younger, more flattering image. Lady Thatcher has looked better than that. Try one from the late 70s or early 80s. BlueKangaroo

I am by far from a political ally of Mrs. Thatcher, but the change of the pic to the funeral chic one from the previous (post-prime ministerial) one is unflattering. Perhaps a revert is in order (if not a switch to one from her first term?) Snap Davies

I totally agree. I reverted one of the recent image changes, but it has been replaced again with the funeral pic. User:Polon seems pretty keen on replacing all the pics in this article. I'm pretty agnostic about her, but the headlining pic should definitely be changed - even the original is better than what is there now. I actually don't think it is very fair - I mean there are three funeral photos in the article. I think we should revert to original until we get a better one. --PhilipO 06:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I have replaced the photo. If anyone finds a better one, feel free to change. --PhilipO 19:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

election results

I have come across the election results ( nos. of seats won and vote %'s) for the thatcher years. Should they be placed in MT page or elsewhere in wikipedia? Do they belong in each election sub-category? Has anyone got any ideas or strong opinions on this? Eric A. Warbuton 06:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Monetarism in Thatcherism

Thatcher was only "monetarist" for 1979-1982 and those policies were absolutely disasterous: inflation doubled and unemployment trebled. She actually claimed, on abandoning the policy, that "it was a doctrine that I've never subscribed to". That may have been a bit of a cop-out by her, but still I think it's a bit misleading to write that monetarism was a key part of Thatcherism, when it only lasted for three years.

A couple of problems

First, the infobox mentions her predecessor and successor without mentioning the job, i.e. Prime Minister of UK.

Second, the intro reads as if she was (is) universally loved and her policies universally supported, apart from the poll tax. No mention of the critics, no mention of her frequently being called "fascist", no mention of her being probably the most fiercely hated politician in UK by a large number of people. The way it is written now, it sounds like wealth inequality increased only during the early 1980s and was reduced afterwards (was it really?) and the whole thing is qualified with the reference to the global recession. The whole thing doesn't sound very NPOV to me. Zocky 09:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Zocky, you have a point (to a degree). The article does refer to her "polarising" effect, but doesn't clearly show the strength of feeling there was (and still is, indeed). Was there not a year when she topped the annual poll of Radio 4 listeners - winning both the most admired and most reviled Brits? If someone can track that down, it would be very illustrative to include. --A bit iffy 14:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, my main problem with the article is it is far too long. I think it ought to be cut down, with the content being put into other, new articles. Off the top of my head, how about separate articles on Maggie's first term in office, her second term, third term, and her downfall? What do people think? --A bit iffy 14:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The only one?

It says in the intro that Thatcher is the only British politician to win three successive general elections, but as of this year isn't that no longer true as Blair has done the same? The sentence is misleading anyway, since I'm sure lots of individual MPs have won their seat lots more than 3 successive times. I'll let the more knowledgeable people on the subject review the sentence before I make the change myself. tracer_bullet 23:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It says "the only British politician to do this in the 20th century". Shanes 23:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, touche. I knew there must have been something I missed. tracer_bullet 03:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
It should probably read only British Prime Minister or ..Party Leader... to win three successive elections. The current Father of the House of Commons, Alan Williams MP, has been there since 1964, so he must have been elected at 12 successive elections. -- Arwel (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Apart from the (correct) 20th Century bit, this all comes down to the confusion in how we refer to governments and elections in the UK. Technically the Government is always Her Majesty's (even if Mrs T might have seen it otherwise!) and elections aren't even technically won or lost, but are described so based on the parliamentary majorities which are formed as a result. Historical studies of UK politics sometimes to refer to 'administrations' or 'ministries' much as in the US now, to identify a government run by a cabinet led by a particular politician of whatever party. How can we use this to improve the article? Perhaps we could change 'She won three successive general elections, the only British politician to do this in the 20th century' to 'She won three successive general elections for her party... etc', or something similar? JDancer 18:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV: Dispute

I find the 'Legacy' section of this article incredibly one sided. The negativity is again incredible.

Not one paragraph of this section is positive. Not one.

(Unsigned comment by User:83.100.141.38)

You have a point. Though you should probably sign in before slapping a NPOV sticker on an article. The section smacks a bit of original work. Looking at the Ronald Regan article and its legacy section it sticks more closely to the facts. Perhaps it should be broken out into Critisms and Legacy ? Megapixie 01:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Given this was a featuread article and is likely heavily viewed the NOV sticker seems a little strong User:83.100.141.38) shoul just add what he feels is missing. Besides if the dispute is about a section not the whole article shouldn't the sticker go on the section? User:cp6ap:cp6ap)

The article should reflect neither negativity nor positivity. It should be a neutral expression of facts. If the article expresses a POV, edit it. But don't do so by adding 'positive' comments. As to the NPOV sticker, you should remove it as soon as you have removed the POV's which you object to. Marcus22 13:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I moved the NPOV sticker to the Legacy section, which was suggested; the rest of the article is balanced I think. Whether or not it is a featured article, if it portrays a one-sided view then I think it should be known. I will add 'neutral' comments in due course, but until then the NPOV sticker is apt. to show readers that its neutrality is disputed. --Tfoxton 17:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the NPOV sticker is inappropriate. I found the article, including the "legacy" section, very fair and balanced. Thatcher gives rise to strong opinions, which no doubt explains why some readers confuse their own one-sided opinions with an objective point of view.

Think your wrong, for example in Legacy it reads "Perceptions abroad broadly follow the same political divisions. On the left...", there are no counterarguments from the view of the 'right', the whole section is like this - a one-sided argument. I wasn't ever born when she was prime minister and I don't support her or her views, but I still find it an unbalanced section.


Stateswoman does not suggest a NPOV. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to describe her as "a retired British politician"? Thoughts anyone? Fishhead64 0814, 09 Dec 05 (UTC)

Agree that 'Stateswoman' is a term not often used in the UK, and often implies a particular (and positive) status. In non-British English use, though, this is often used instead of politician, particularly where the particular politician is retired or elderly, or a former holder of high office. She is certainly an 'elder stateswoman' of the Conservative party, implying a status and weight within that grouping, much as Roy Hattersley is an elder statesman of the Labour Party, whatever you think of his politics. JDancer 18:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

500 Pictures?

Nolop has been adding multiple pictures of Mrs. Thatcher to the article. I don't believe that having that many pictures improves the article. Perhaps we could either delete them or move them to a gallery subpage? Thoughts? --Syrthiss 21:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed they seem over the top. One image of her is more than enough for me! Marcus22 21:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreement here, as well. The overall appearance of the article has been spoiled by an excess of photography. Perversely, the most prominent photograph is a rather poor choice given the huge selection. Will remove a few of them to start. jamesgibbon 12:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Dealings with Saddam

Why is any mention of her dealings with Saddam Hussein (as exposed by the Scott inquiry in 1996) invariably deleted?

You need to cite sources for your claims. Canderson7 (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
If you dispute details then remove them (or comment them out) pending verifying sources. Deleting all mention of Arms-to-Iraq is not appropriate. Rd232 talk 17:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Longest Serving?

I don't know if she can be considered the longest serving PM of the 20th Century. Maybe she was in the UK, but the longest serving PM of the 20th century would have to be Robert Menzies of Australia, who was in from 1949 to 1966.

Article makes clear that this is in reference to being Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. JDancer 18:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Too Few Pictures

I agree that there were too many pictures, now i think there are too few and atleast 2 more need to be added.

The following edit shows the pictures that were removed perhaps someone would like to add some back http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&diff=28283678&oldid=28271847 Megapixie 09:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thatcher´s Faith

Can someone, please, tell me, what was Thatcher´s religious denomination? Thanks!


Concerning the pictures: They need sorting in a propper order on the page. Be carfull not to put too many back though.

          Thatcher was a Methodist.

only PM to win three consecutive elections?

Surely this needs updating? Glennh70 15:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Be Bold and update it yourself if you have conflicting sourced information. :) --Syrthiss 14:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
aha it was specific to the twentieth century, Tony Blair carried on to the 21st!Glennh70 15:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


Edits to header paragraphs

I've just made a collection of minor edits to the first few paras. First was to remove the reference to Margaret Beckett: the point is being made that Thatcher is the only woman to have been Leader of the Opposition; this is a formal title in Parliament and though the point about Beckett is relevant and should be made somewhere in Wikipedia, it's a little off topic for the second para in a major article. Second was to remove the extra clause after 'she eventually resigned after failing to win outright a leadership election triggered by opponents within her own party, and was replaced by John Major in 1990' which says that he went on to win in 1992: this is too much for one sentence and not so relevant. Also added 'As party Leader' to 'She was undefeated at the polls' in the third para to make the paragraph flow better. Removed 'and certain parts of the UK have still to recover from this' from 'Her supporters contend that she was responsible for rejuvenating the British economy, while her opponents argue that she was responsible for — among other things — mass unemployment and a vast increase in inequality between rich and poor' which might be true but removes the neutral phrasing of the sentence and reads badly.

The rest of that para used to read 'However, supporters of Thatcher have argued that the unemployment during her leadership was a necessary phase the British economy had to go through in converting to a more flexible, high growth economy. They also point out that although the wealth gap widened, the bottom ten per cent of society still saw an increase in real disposable income.'; this seemed to me a little bit he-said-she-said; this para also seems to repeat the arguemnts in the preceeding para; I've brought them together and added a sentence which reflects some of the 'modern' views on the effects of the 1980s and how this influences British politics today; I've tried not to disturb the neutrality/balance of the original. JDancer 19:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Milk

Could do with adding [6] as a reference about the milk issue. Morwen - Talk 11:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Her mother's lineage

This article claims that Beatrice Roberts was descended from some noble families, as well as the Barons Brownlow and Earls of Kilmorey. However reading John Campbell's Margaret Thatcher: The Iron Lady I see this:

Her [Thatcher] regal manner gave rise to the fantasy among some of her more besotted admirers that she was not a Grantham grocer's daughter at all, but actually came of aristocratic stock, her grandmother having supposedly been seduced by one of the Cust family while working as a housemaid at Belton House. There is no evidence for this at all: it is pure snobbery, a version of the Cinderella fairy-tale embraced by romantics who thought her real origins too mundane for their princess. - p. 476.

--Johnbull 16:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


"Dumpy and dull, she felt overshadowed by her more glamorous brother, whom she believed was always her mother's favourite. While her mother pursued her political career and Denis was involved in corporate life, Carol was raised by nannies and teachers at St Paul's boarding school."Quote from The Scotsman which I can't enter at the moment due to a spam blocker.

Part of "Family life" section removed

In the family life section I encountered the following:

Margaret Thatcher has been accused of Hypocrisy and Consistency|inconsistency over family values and other issues.

I've removed it for 3 reasons: 1) It is not enough to put a reference next to a statement, for the statement to be useful. Some background or a short summary of what was found in the reference should be included. 2) "..and other issues" is too general and needs to be backed up or removed. 3) (most important) The reference (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200310/ai_n9331346) is to an article, consisting of opinions, assumptions and speculations, not fact.


I have not reinstated the quote, but surely the 3rd reason given above misses the point - if someone in the cited article actually DID accuse 'ol Maggs, even if only therein, then surely the statement originally posted must be factually correct? There has been no attempt to disguise the fact that the accusations were POV: aren't most (all?) accusations, assertions and utterances?

Also, the first given reason for the removal of the contribution may be factually correct, but surely the "summary of what was found in the reference" is what has been removed along with the link?

As to the relevance of the deleted point, the more I consider it the more I think it may actually be a legitimate inclusion to the article. Thatcher did apply quite a lot of weight to her "Family Values" campaign, gaining a lot of useful publicity and basing policy on the assertion that a traditional nuclear family is best. Refusing state assistance and tax breaks for single parents, denying the push toward equal rights for women to claim benefit when temporarily unemployed but married to a working man, and housing policies favouring "normal" families are just three policies I can think of that were affected by the Family Values initiative. (I can provide references should you wish detailing the parliamentary discussions and rebuttals of the ideas, just seems a bit pointless since I'm actually leaving the article alone for now!)

Denis Thatcher and son Mark both made derogatory comments about Thatcher's approach to family life (very different from the approach she repeatedly advocated in their autobiogs) and Carol said a few unsavoury things in that jungle programme (UK) she appeared on recently.

So, I'd appreciate a few more views on the point before I reinstate it or add something similar. Thanks. Codeye 01:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

She is accused of dismantling the Welfare State

This part of the article, at the end of the second paragraph of the Legacy section doesn't seem right to me. She is accused of dismantling the Welfare State and of destroying much of the UK's manufacturing base.

The first charge reflects her government's rhetoric more than its actions, as it actually did little to reduce welfare expenditure, despite its desire to do so.

I find it hard to believe that is true, some proof would be useful.81.178.64.79 22:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

So, you accept she destroyed much of the UK's manufacturing base, then?Phase4 00:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
What a load of crap - before you slate Thatcher, take account of how much Labour have knackered Manufacturing: --TFoxton 01:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


labour force survey - quarterly: old unreweighted
ONS Crown Copyright Reserved [from Nomis on 1 May 2006]
variable all employed in manufacturing (sec D) as % of all in employment
Date Great Britain
number value
Sep-Nov 1992 5,236,000 20.8
Sep-Nov 1997 4,966,000 18.8
Sep-Nov 2003 3,991,000 14.2
I think User:81.178.64.79 is right; Thatcher in no way 'dismantled' the welfare state, nor did she attempt in any major way in 'dismantling' it. There was no 'Thatcher revolution' in welfare spending.--Johnbull 01:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Quote: "What a load of crap - before you slate Thatcher, take account of how much Labour have knackered Manufacturing: --TFoxton 01:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)"
This article is about THATCHER not a comparison of Tory/Labour failures/successes. Candy 18:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation for argentine ship paragraph?

The sinking of the Argentine Cruiser, the General Belgrano, has been described as a war crime. The vessel was heading away from a military exclusion zone when it was sunk by a British submarine, resulting in the loss of 323 lives. The explanation given by Margaret Thatcher at the time was incoherent and her part in the atrocity has never been fully examined or admitted.

I think I need to see a cite on this one. Described by who? I agree with the factual middle sentence, supported by the information in ARA General Belgrano. --Syrthiss 20:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Weasle words and not NPOV may need editing

Calling the Labour Party "stubbornly" Anti-nuclear is weasely (imho). The part stating, "Thatcher was committed to reducing the power of the trade unions but, unlike the Heath government, adopted a strategy of incremental change rather than a single Act. Several unions launched strikes that were wholly or partly aimed at damaging her politically." could eaily be rewritten that "Thatcher tried to wholly or partically damaging the trade unions politically but unlike the Heath government, adopted a strategy of incremental change rather than a single Act. Several unions launched strikes that were wholly or partly aimed at preserving workers' rights).

Finally, the lines from Sowing the Seeds of Love (Tears for Fears) refer to Thatcher as follows: "Politician Granny with your high ideals Have you no idea how the majority feels". Candy 20:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


That opinionated, ignorant and offensive statement remained until I re-wrote it a few days ago on my first reading of the entry. How did it last so long, particularly considering that the above was written in March and my alterations were made in October? To suggest that the seven MILLION people who went on strike in that four-year period did it primarily (or even secondarily) to smear the reputation of a politician is actually illegal: it is likely to "incite civil disturbances", uses language that is likely to cause offence,(!) and more seriously, could actually be libellous if a Union managed to prove the claims were perceived as relating to them and have therefore suffered damage to their reputation.

I personally thought it referred to the miners on first reading - they are the first union that springs to mind when talking about early 80's strike actions. If others make the same subliminal assertion, it's sufficiently worrying enough to consider deleting even the history of it? Views?

  • Luckily*, the large number of diff. unions striking through this time (only in many cases to still lose their jobs, their rights AND their unions: Mineworkers; Cycle-Makers; Teachers; Transport and General workers; Shopworkers'; Firemen's; Electricians; Printers; Journalists; Fishermen's; Farmers'; Postal workers'; Bus drivers',Train Drivers, Railway workers and Air-traffic controllers; Cooks, Dinner-ladies', Landlord's (Licensed Victuallers) and Brewers... (etc) Unions all took industrial action through this time (not all went out on Strike but majority did); which may indemnify against liability!

Anyhow, I've re-done the section (dunno why it just shows my IP; I'm sure I was logged in when I made the alterations) and can now read it without fear of an impending stress-induced coronary! Codeye 02:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words and POV is right!

Weasel words and POV is putting it mildly! This article is so bloated with POV, sloppy writing and flaky or non-existent references, that I can't believe it's a featured article. I've pared the monster down from 75K(!) to under 48K. (see Article size) And I've tried to remove as much polemic and POV as I could, but there's still lots remaining. This is not about lengthy analysis or biography. This is an encyclopædia article. Please save brilliant insights or rumor or minutiae or school papers for another venue. If people insist on adding their two bob, please note that they must be verifiable, i.e. citations! J M Rice 18:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Significant amounts of info removed May 22

As of this edit on 22 May, a lot of information was removed from the article. Someone may be interested in going through to make sure these removals are acceptable, since they were not discussed. --tomf688 (talk - email) 15:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The post just above yours by User:J M Rice explains why he made significant edits to this article. It was too big, and still is. Articles should be no longer than 32KB yet this is still 48KB.--Johnbull 15:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
IIRC the limit is a left over from the days when technical limitations meant that articles had to be small. PMA 19:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no limit on article length, since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Information should not be removed with the simple reason that the article is "too long", but instead divided into subarticles. I have not thoroughly read through the information removed, but it would seem to me that the work of a lot of editors has been removed without much consideration. --tomf688 (talk - email) 18:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, Johnbull, please note this quotation on the page you linked to above: "Do not take precipitous action the very instant an article exceeds 32 KB. There is no need for haste. Discuss the overall topic structure with other editors. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles and, if so, how best to organize them. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information." --tomf688 (talk - email) 18:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
tomf688, please note that some of the information removed (which you admit you haven't read through to see what it was...) was duplicated at the beginning of the article and was not even about Thatcher (e.g. an irrelevant discourse on the Coventry Four). Basically the whole article was put into six paragraphs at the beginning and then the information was repeated throughout the article. Perhaps if you're passionate about the information that was removed you could read through the page history and re-add it to the article?--Johnbull 19:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm merely pointing out that your comment above that "articles should be no longer than 32kb" is not correct. If the information was obviously redundant, however, then it is fine to remove. --tomf688 (talk - email) 18:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No criticism section

No criticisms section? I don't get it... --UVnet 04:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher, like Ronald Reagan, was the personification of perfection and thus shall she be kept by her partisans. Did you expect real WP:NPOV editing on hot political articles? ;-)
Atlant 13:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Margaret Thatcher, alongside being the most evil woman in the world, was also loved and often worshipped by many soft-headed and gullible people. It's only natural, therefore, that her entry should reflect both sides of the story! lol Lawsonrob (talk • contribs) .

Fellow of The Royal Society?

I can't see any explicit mention as to how/why she became a member. I never saw her as being in the same scientific league as Hawking or Dawkins, so it'd be interesting to know how she became a member.213.122.31.29 19:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Typical Wiki presentation

I just love how pretty much every Wiki article on prominent perceived "conservative" politicians characterizes each as "polarizing" and "controversial", while every prominent politician on the left is "beloved" and "revered". This article is no different, with far too much emphasis on the negative interpretations. Half the article is on "Why she was controversial," with only a veneer of balance. NPOV should be more than a figleaf.71.199.206.213 19:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice assertion, 71.199.206.213. Please now list at least six Wiki articles on "conservative" politicians who you say are thus maligned, and another six "on the left" who are contrarily revered and beloved. If you have difficulty doing this, maybe your premise is (just slightly) exaggerated!Phase4 20:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
This article shouldn't be featured. Just look at the "Legacy" section, what a mess with unreferenced information. The whole article just seems POV to me, written by people who obviously reviles Thatcher.

Brighton Hotel Bombing

There is contradictory information between this article and the Brighton hotel bombing article. This article claims Thatcher was saved because she was in the bathroom when the bomb went off, and thus avoided the bomb blast. The Brighton hotel bombing article says she wasn't in the bathroom, and that the blast "shredded through her bathroom". At least one of these accounts has to be wrong. Can someone find out what really happened? -- 219.89.134.48 09:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that [7] is a relevent source on this (which I suspect it is) then the extract from her diaries:
"At 2.50am Robin Butler asked me to look at one last official paper - it was about the Liverpool Garden Festival. I gave Robin my view and he began to put away the papers. At 2.54am a loud thud shook the room. There were a few seconds' silence and then there was a second slightly different noise, in fact created by falling masonry. I knew immediately that it was a bomb - perhaps two bombs, a large followed by a smaller device - but at this stage I did not know that the explosion had taken place inside the hotel. Glass from the windows of my sitting room was strewn across the carpet. But I thought that it might be a car bomb outside. ... The adjoining bathroom was more severely damaged, though the worst I would have suffered had I been in there were minor cuts. Those who had sought to kill me had placed the bomb in the wrong place."
From this I think it is clear that
1. margaret Thatcher had not been in the bathroom at the time (unless she was having her conversation with Robin Butler there ... which I seriously doubt but you never know) and that
2. in her opinion, if she had been she would only have minor cuts.
Candy 15:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I made some edits to the main page about this. I removed phrases like "narrowly escaped", remove the speculation that she might have died when in the bathroom (she clearly didn't consider that herself) and removed the statement the bathroom "suffered extensive damage" which is not supported (she herself claimed the "adjoining bathroom was more severely damaged" which is a comparative but without any description of what the actual damage was so it's hard to support the term "extensive damage").

Candy 10:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV in very first paragraph.

"Mrs Thatcher is the most successful of British Prime Ministers, many still wish she was still the PM today, especially those in Welsh Coal Mining Communities, who in everyone's opinion she treated most suitabily!"

IMHO this entire sentence (including its misspelling) should be stricken. Her treatment of Welsh miners, and their reaction, should be part of the body of the article.

--69.125.213.75 18:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's somebody taking the pee. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lawsonrob (talk • contribs) .
Exactly, it was some petty vandalism that was reverted around 90 seconds after it was put there. Gwernol 16:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Head of Political Parties

Was Margaret Beckett not also (acting) head of the opposition between John Smith's death and Tony Blair's election?

Pictures

Again, what has happened to the pictures?. There used to be a very good collection on this page. Now there are not enough; an artcle of this size requires more pictures.

British trade unionist

I see Ms. Thatcher has been included in the Category:British trade unionists. Is it just me, or is that ... uh... perhaps misplaced?--Bookandcoffee 16:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Whilst working as a research chemist she was a member of the Association of Scientific Workers.--Johnbull 16:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Did she actively participate in it, though? The category requires something more than simple membership. -- Arwel (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Well she joined, other than that I don't know. I thought that as a British trade unionist she fitted the category "British trade unionists".--Johnbull 17:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the category is generally about leaders in the trade union movement or people active in promoting or advancing a unionist agenda. I'm from across the pond, but I don't recall Thatcher in that particular light. :)--Bookandcoffee 17:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't sound very NPOV to me if that's the case; that only British trade unionists with particular political opinions can be included in the British trade unionists category. Norman Tebbit is also in the category.--Johnbull 17:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how "NPOV" comes into play here. It would be pointless to list every person in Wikipedia as a unionist simply because they worked in a union shop at some point in their career. There has to be a definition for the category - that's not POV, that's just what a category is... --Bookandcoffee 17:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the category. I don't think the statement "Margaret Thatcher is a trade unionist." is something that you're going to hear very often :), so I think the category is not appropriate.--Bookandcoffee 20:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not assuming that only Labour supporters can be active trade unionists, but to be in the category they should be active. When I was on the TSSA Executive Committee, one of my colleagues was a Liberal Democrat councillor, and I knew of some (a few!) Conservatives who were branch delegates at Annual Conference. -- Arwel (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

'Random' quotes

Removing these quotes was not done because they were inappropriate, illegitimate or random but because they show Thatcher in a slightly different light to your own POV. A truly NPOV article would show many facets of the woman and not just a gooey saccharine view that eulogises her. The quotes are authentic and are going back. thanks Peter morrell 06:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. There is no authentic source for the first quotation; no record of her saying it and it is probably invented. The second "no such thing as society" quote is already added later on. The article already has lots and lots of criticisms of Thatcher and I really can't see any "gooey saccharine" views of her in the article.--Johnbull 20:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Huh, you did not read the links very closely then did you? It is all in the official record of Parliamentary business, called Hansard. It is also quoted here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1228177,00.html "Bus deregulation also took place under the Conservatives, following the passage of the Transport Act 1985. It had a bad effect on my town but a worse effect on many other communities where they were not able to keep the public transport network in public ownership. Bus journeys fell by 25 per cent. in that period; no wonder congestion has risen. There were cuts in spending on road maintenance in the order of some 13 per cent. We had 18 years of transport under the Conservatives. They were anti-car, anti-train and anti-bus. That just about gives them a full house." [8]

"The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) said that the Conservatives had no policy on buses, but that is hardly surprising in view of the most famous quote of all time about the buses, delivered by Margaret Thatcher when the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was working in Conservative central office as her speech writer. This is what she said in 1986: "A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure"...Was the hon. Gentleman responsible for writing that?" [9] So the quotes is actually not only valid but also highly pertinent to her transport policies. sorry I forgot to sign it! Peter morrell 16:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to read your sources more closely or perhaps you think a Liberal Democrat MP is somehow a credible source for mythological quotes from a Tory PM; if so, I'm afraid you have poor judgement and an uncritical eye for sources. Opposing MPs can make up all manner of things about a politician from a rival political party, it does not make them true. The quote is not valid.--Johnbull 20:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This quote was attributed to Mrs Thatcher by Don Foster, MP for Bath. He says that "the exact time and place of the original speech I have not been able to identify, but my guess is that it is in the 1986 Hansards, which are not online." [10] Therefore, regardless of your POV, the true factual accuracy (or otherwise) of this quote cannot be resolved until someone searches the 1986 Hansard. So there the matter must rest. Peter morrell 10:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
No. In fact all of Thatcher's remarks and speeches in the House of Commons—including 1986—are online at http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/default.asp, copies of the Hansard reports. There is record of her making the quote in Hansard and therefore the LibDem MP, and you, are wrong. Also, from the link you posted, you attribute to Don Foster the remark starting "the exact time and place of the original speech..." when in fact that remark was posted by funtrivia.com's user Brainyblonde, quoting Wikipedia's User:Diderot.--Johnbull 18:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Johnbull said: "There is record of her making the quote in Hansard and therefore the LibDem MP, and you, are wrong." what on earth is this sentence supposed to mean? Peter morrell 19:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC) "

I meant there is no record of it.--Johnbull 19:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
So in fact what you are saying is that this sentence was an error on your part? thank you. Peter morrell 20:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that I made a mistake in my grammar. I notice you haven't tried to defend the validity of the quote since I proved it is mythological. The matter is settled.--Johnbull 20:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

LOLOL!!!!

I think this post deserves a Handbags At Dawn match review:

Johnbull ruled from the start in this hugely enjoyable 3rd Round battle, fighting hard and consistantly pushing his simple but factual message home. Morrell was working well in the early part of the match, showing considerable flair in defensive positions and standing up well to the infinitely more skilled and substantial messages of his opponent. Mid-way through the game, the cracks really began to appear for Morello, who found himself pushed completely onto the back foot by the tenacious Johnbull's skilful, highly-tactical syle. Constant, sensical and patient contributions by Johnbull eventually reduced poor Peter to the level of pedantic, childish insults; this unprofessional display destroying his earlier hard work and any credibility he may once have had in the field of Impartial Gatekeeping.

Johnbull finished his impressive performance strongly, but interestingly disagreed with himself inadvertantly AND used bad grammar whilst apologising for the poor grammar of his previous entry. These errors went completely un-noticed and unpunished by Morello, who was apparently too busy picking for nits to notice the plank protruding from his eye - we all sincerely wish him good luck in regaining the form he found earlier in the competition, and hope his recovery is swift.

This is intended with no malice whatsoever to anyone, it's just a bit of fun to hopefully pass on the delight I took from reading your posts to others. I sincerely hope both Johnbull and Peter have no objections to this post, apologies if I have offended.

ps What you were "stating" is that you made a mistake "with" your grammar, or "made a grammatical error." Regarding the final post, the value of the said quote is not mythological, as you lead us to believe in your incorrectly structured sentence. It is the quote itself that you asserted was mythological.

TONGUE firmly tucked in cheek! 82.21.203.69 04:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC) ABOVE actually written by me, don't know why it hasn't registered as I was logged in at time of writing. Codeye 04:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Lady Margaret Thatcher

Baroness Thatcher is entitled to the title "Lady" before her name as she is a Lady of the Order of the Garter.

Incorrect, she is a life peer, and therefore the Baroness Thatcher, her membership of the Order of the Garter as a Lady Companion entitled her to the postnominals LG. If however she was not a Baroness then she would be entitled to the style "Lady Margaret Thatcher LG". --Jason Hughes 10:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


Longest since

They said she is the longest PM since Lord Liverpool or whatever but dont you mean putt the younger who was PM from 1783-1802 or so and then again for another term? V.C. - SATURDAY OCT 14 11:26 EST.

You're right, Pitt the Younger was PM for longer, but Lord Liverpool was more recent (1812-1827); as such, Thatcher is the longest serving PM since Lord Liverpool. Walton monarchist89 16:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture!!

Is there no decent headline pic for thatcher? The current one is bad! wheres the original one gone?--Ruddyell 12:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


Can't you put a picture that has to do with the period she governed? - copernicus

Why Picture Removed

The picture was removed as it had infringed copyright laws. Thank you. User:That1|That1]]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.182.240 (talk • contribs)

Dear Mr./Mrs. err... "That1|That1]]", could you please be so gracious as to inform us to the whereabouts of this infringement. Thank you so much.
Yours truly not yours,
Van helsing 19:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
In answer to your question, you may wish to read the fair use guideline and copyright policy, which state that copyrighted images should not be used where a free equivalent is available. Though the free image that had been used might not be the most appealing, replacing it with a copyrighted image is still a breach of the fair use policy and, by extension, a potential breach of US copyright law. Road Wizard 01:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
To help you in selecting a free alternative, this link will take you to a collection of free to use images of Margaret Thatcher at Wikimedia Commons. Road Wizard 01:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Damn, you’re so right of course; I didn’t pay enough attention there. Then, of the suggested free images (thanks for the link), I would like to suggest to use (Image:Thatcher-loc.jpg). It certainly gives me a higher that-was-Thatcher kind of feel (see now it’s also used on some other laguages).--Van helsing 08:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Strike that, already used in the article; not awake yet I suppose.--Van helsing 08:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I see that the commons category I linked to above is now empty, and the free images have now all been moved to here. It would also appear that someone has uploaded another image of questionable copyright status. I have left a message on its talk page here, if someone knows that the copyright has been waived for this image, please provide evidence before orphanbot deletes it. As a final point, editors may be interested in looking at this old page version from the middle of October which made use of the image suggested by Van Helsing. Perhaps those that are unsatisfied with the latest free picture would be satisfied with a return to the old one? Road Wizard 00:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The Greatest Modern PM

Just like to state that this great lady is the greatest ever PM in living MEMORY, she made Britain Great again. Thank you mam. Englandtillidie 18:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Opinions obviously vary. But I'm sure you've read WP:NPOV, right? ...So you understand that things that are okay to say on "talk" pages may not be okay for the articles.
Atlant 18:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Ignore him. He's a block evading sockpuppet troll (Englandtillidie, I mean, not Atlant). The JPStalk to me 18:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

ATLANT, thanks for the advice, obviously its my opinion so i would never put it on the main page. Cheers THEJPS give me a break, i am allowed an opinion. She was the greatest PM in the 20th century and in the top 3 of all time. I dont like the name calling, bit immatureDaveegan06 01:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)81.145.242.37 01:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Incidentally I completely agree with you. Walton monarchist89 10:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In popular culture

Not one of these items was referenced. plerase feel free to readd with a source for any of them, SqueakBox 17:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


Vandalism

Somebody has clearly been vandalizing this page. There is a comment thatt "she likes to strangle baby squirrels for fun" for example, that I cannot seem to figure out how to remove from the article as it does not show up on the edit page.

There are no current references to squirrels on the page. An anonymous vandal inserted squirrels into a paragraph title at 2040 tonight - 2 hours before your comment - and it was removed at 2107. You may have been looking at a cached version of the page. -- Arwel (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


Falkland Islands

I am quite frustrated by reading the comments under the Falkland Island category. I have changed it several times in an attempt to make the article more neutral and include that Argentina does, in fact, have century old claims to the Islands which Britain has refused to accept. The Falkland Islands war was not a question of a mere invasion but rather of a country attempting to reclaim what it believed to be its rightful possession. Therefore, I would like to ask the "powers that be" to lock the article in such a way that it does include the opinions of Argentine tradition and history and not simply to say that the Islands were "invaded" by the Argentine forces. According to Argentine history the Falklands are Argentine land that is occupied by the British. A failure to give heed to this side of the argument is a bias against it.

You have got to be kidding? You want to try Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. IMO you are asking wikipedia to accept the Argentine version, and that it cannot do, SqueakBox 23:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "you have got to be kidding" comment, I would like to mention like almost everything in life, nothing is absolute. For the sake of showing the two sides of the coin, the Argentine version (which is by the way supported by many other countries) should be taken into account.

Not in this article it doesnt, this article is about Margaret Thatcher not about the Falklands, SqueakBox 20:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that this article is about Margaret Thatcher and not about the Falkland (Malvinas) does not mean that you can write anything about that matter.

This is not an arguement about the subject of this article but rather about neutrality. By changing a few words the meaning of the paragraph is not changed but rather the bias of it is eliminated. No one is trying to deny that Argentina sent troops to the Falkland Islands nor that Argentina ended up losing the conflict. What is trying to be said is that as an attempt at writing an academic piece, it should not be stated that Argentina "invaded" the islands since a neutral position would allow room for the Argentine position as well (that position being that they are part of Argentina and are currently under occupation). I am not saying that we should argue in this article the true sovereignty of the Islands but rather that sometimes words could be more carefully chosen to reflect a neutral point of view. Regarding the "you have got to be kidding" comment, I think that a higher level of respect could be shown to other Wiki users than to personally attack in that way.

Wel, it wasnt an attack but it was an expression of disbelief, I certainly dont think when someone says "you have to be kidding" that that is taken as apersonal attack in English. The reality is that under any terms these islands were invaded by the Argentinians, which until the war were not Argentinian since 1833. Occupy makes out Thatcher was wrong to re-ocuppy them and implies that Thatcher herself invaded them and that is not what happened, what happened is that the UK were in occupation and the Argentinians invaded them and triggered a bloody war. There is space at wikipedia for the Argentinian viewpoint but that space, IMO, is not here, SqueakBox 22:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Victoria Bitter have made a commercial with a picture of Thatcher. They claim that Margaret had a 'Tash'. Well, she can hit you for six!" What the hell is that doing in the introduction? I think that should be removed, but as I am inexperienced in the ways of wikipedia rules I will not, I'll just point it out. Wegason 13:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Libya quote

I removed a strange quote about her role in the US attacks on Libya- I don't think the ravings of a dictator are relevant to the Baroness' biography. I am also concerned it breaks WP:BLP as it is clearly offensive and libelous. Astrotrain 13:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a page to honour Thatcher. This is a significant quote from a head of state of a nation recognised in the UN.--Vintagekits 13:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What Liyba a UN recognised country?. And what does critised mean? Clearly to libellously call her a prostitute and murderer will not be allowed here as a violation of BLP, merely because Gaddafi is a head of state doesnt mean we tolerate his statements that violate BLP, SqueakBox 15:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh well why dont we whitewash any critisism of the good Lady then!--Vintagekits 22:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I've also had to remove a similar comment from Ivor Bell. Astrotrain 22:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The comment is notable as it came from a world leader. The comment does not breach WP:BLP as it is sources from a WP:RS. Unless someone can convince me otherwise that section and more will be going back in--Vintagekits 23:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a sourced quote from a reliable source, WP:BLP does not apply. One Night In Hackney 23:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Its a libellous slur and just because Gaddafi is a world leader does not give him the right to call any UK citizen a prostitute let alone a respected ex PM, clearly this was a BLP violation as libellous and untrue. We dont say George Bush is in competition with Hitler as pure evil in the W.Bush article even though Chavez says it, and nor can we make incendiary statements here, SqueakBox 04:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Since when is Thatcher respected? She's one of the most despised PMs of recent times. I propose Gaddafi's criticism is included, although not in the form of a direct quote. At present it seems the entire article is a whitewash bereft of criticism of Thatcher, the meeting with Pinochet is described as "highly publicised" as opposed to the more accurate "highly controversial". One Night In Hackney 07:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)