Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

First Lord or First Lady

Question: British Prime Ministers are First Lords of the Treasury; was Thatcher's title "First Lord of the Treasury", or "First Lady of the Treasury"? [...] -- SJK'

First Lord of the Treasury. --Zundark, 2001 Nov 30

Bias?

Please please please can we state how many feel that Thatcher's legacy is still weighing on Britain, whether the state of the railways, the lunatic work ethic, or just the general dental health of nation (it's been recently stated that cases of mouth cancer are on the rise -- presumed to be due to her abolishing free dental checkups for all).

Inappropriate sexual connotations

Changed the reasons people like/dislike her: "feisty v. schoolmarm" places too much emphasis on her sex and not enough on her politics, I think. Many people have strong feelings about Thatcher that are unconnected with the fact that she is a woman. Admittedly, though, the issue has often been used (especially when attacking her), and in fact she used it herself on occasion. Mswake 04:13 Jul 26, 2002 (PDT)

Trivia

Does anyone care that the "Iron Lady" once had a trip on a boat in the Thames? Hotlorp

Americanocentralism?

"In the 1990s, Britain emerged with a comparatively healthy economy, at least by European standards." Is it just me, or does this seem a little non-NPOV? Somewhat of an Americanocentric imperialistic term, no doubt... ;-) -- James F. 02:09 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

So don't just whine about it. Fix it. -- Derek Ross 02:31 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. The reason I mentioned it here first was that I wasn't sure whether I was just being overly sensitive, and also that I had no idea what to change it to. However, what you've said seems wrong to me too, so I've changed it to 'previous'. -- James F. 02:37 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

That's the spirit! Well done. -- Derek Ross

Disambiguation

The Bush Library - 22 November, 1990] - President Bush talks about Thatcher resignation

I changed this to make it clear that the President is Bush 41 and not Bush 43. -- hoshie

Improvement

" Later, as Minister of Education and Science under Edward Heath, she was forced to administer a cut in the Education budget. She decided that abolishing free milk in schools would be less harmful than other measures. "

That isn't NPOV either. Suggest...

"Later, as Minister of Education and Science under Edward Heath, she implemented cuts in the Education budget. Thatcher decided to abolish free milk in schools reversing a previous public health measure."

Muppet 13:39, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Mrs Thatcher - "This is no time to get wobbly"

I am certain that this well known remark was not made to President Bush, senior. It happened in the build up to the Falklands War, not the Gulf War. The circumstances were that the US Secretary of State - Al Haig and his entourage were in 10 Downing Street discussing the pros and cons with Mrs. Thatcher. What I believe she actually said was - " This is no time to get wobbly, Al." And when returning by car to the US Embassy in London, one of his group remarked to Haig. "Do you realise that Mrs. Thatcher has given you a new name?" Asked to explain, he was told that he was now 'Wobbly Al'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottishbrian (talk • contribs) 08:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Abolition of councils

The following line should be deleted or edited;

' Several of them had however rendered themselves politically vulnerable by committing public funds to causes seen as extreme.'

Criticism of criticism results in flip-flop tit-for-tat edits by those with opposing viewpoints. This information should be included in the first sentence regarding the councils, not as a response to the alternative viewpoint. A key giveaway is the double-use of 'however' in the same paragraph. Also, its a partisan line - obviously the councils didn't see themselves as 'extreme,' or their policies as 'politically vulnerable' - only those opposing the council's policies hold this view. Given this section is all about describing a political confrontation and a potential partisan abuse of power, the tone needs to be much less one-eyed itself. Mdw0 (talk) 06:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

text {{editsemiprotected}} Songs Section

In the songs section I reckon this is missing : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Maggie I remember it being banned in the UK when it came out, but I can't find any evidence of this at the moment... Anyway, that should defo make it there—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbm11 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 8 October 2008

 Not doneThat song's article has just been deleted for copyright infringement. Also, I'm not sure what exactly about the song you wanted to be put into the section. If you would kindly write exactly what you would like inserted, then I can copy and paste it into the article if it's warranted.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Songs

i know of another song inspired by Margret Thatcher which is thatcher fucked the kids by "Frank Turner" i don't know whether to put it into the segment or what it is quite a famous song if you search on "youtube" and find it so should i place it into the article.

I believe this would be classified under WP:TRIVIA. Happyme22 (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Happyme22: What sort of "citations" are you looking for, and can you explain what you mean by a "GA"? Prince_Philip_of_Greece (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. As outlined in the Manual of Style, all content on Wikipedia needs to be cited. This means that everything added needs to be verified by a reliable source. I've recently completly redone this article, re-structuring sections and paragraphs, and adding citations. As a part of this process, I removed the section entitled "Songs" for two reasons: a.) It contained few, if any, citations; b.) The content could easily be classified as trivia. A paragraph full of songs, most protest songs, really adds nothing to the article. Featured articles such as Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford contain no such sections either, though I'm sure that many songs have been written about those two leaders as well. As you will see, however, I added a sentence in the Legacy section regarding the songs.

"GA" means good article, which is a type of article rank. I have nominated this article for good article status, which would make it a GA. Please see WP:GA for more information on that. Hope this helps. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Most of the artists and/or songs listed were cross-referenced to articles in WP - is this not sufficient citations? Also, the trivia section includes, "a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information." You say? Prince_Philip_of_Greece (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia cannot be used as its own source. Any claims made in a Wikipedia article need to be supported by reliable, third-party sources to conform with the key verifiability policy. Road Wizard (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Legacy section

I moved the passage regarding Mrs. Thatcher's various honours from the Falkland Islanders (Margaret Thatcher Day, etc) out of foreign honours, and with the section on her British hoinours. Clearly honours for Mrs. Thatcher from the Falkland Islanders are not foreign, they are British. CMarshall (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

Great work so far, but I see a few things missing.

• No mention of her relationship with the Queen. Sure She's only a limited monarch, and there's been much gossip on the subject, but they did have weekly meetings and it's a fairly important (though not essential) detail. See [1],[2],[3],[4],[5].
• No mention of her initial opposition to German reunification - pretty important. See [6].
• No mention of Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock. Of course this is about Thatcher and not them, and about her life as a whole and not the '83 & '87 campaigns, but we should lay some slight emphasis on the dynamics between her and her chief political adversaries during that period. She was of course a great politician, but also fortunate that Labour was unelectable for much of that decade. For some flavour see [7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12]. -- Biruitorul ^Talk 06:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give them a try and see what you think. Thanks for the compliments and the suggestions! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've inserted something on each of your above points. --Happyme22 (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent - looks great! I'll let you know if I think up anything else, but I trust this can regain FA status in fairly short order. Biruitorul ^Talk 06:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That is the ultimate goal, and it will be much better than before! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted "because of her tactful handling and diplomacy" for NPOV reasons from the intro section about 1982 Falklands War and 1983 General Election. This was not how many perceived her and I think the sentence reads fine without it.JohnG62 (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that removal. I am also reverting many other changes recently made to the page on the account of WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Happyme22 (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Shareholding

The article currently says "the proportion of shares held by individuals rather than institutions did not increase. By the mid 1980s, the number of individual stockholders had tripled". Either one of these statements is untrue, or they are true at different dates. It does need clarification. djnjwd (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether either statement is true, but they aren't contradictory. For example, it could be that in 1980, 20% of British shares were owned by 1000 individuals, owning an average of 0.02% of the shares each, but by 1985, 20% of shares were owned by 3000 individuals, an average of 0.007% each. That would be consistent with what the article claims about fast turnover of holdings. Clarification would help, if anyone knows the actual figures. TheAstonishingBadger (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

raspberry ripple

she invented raspberry ripple icecream. she was pround of her chemistry, and felt it was an important part of her life leading to her political life. this fact should be included. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Do you have a citation to back it up? Happyme22 (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Happyme22

Just want to say i think you do good work here - I hate people like Tirailleur - that's the danger of Wikipedia - you have right-wingers like him trying to protect and whitewash the Thatcher and Reagan articles while left-wingers try to whitewash and protect the Lenin and Castro articles. Paul Austin (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Thatcher is such an interesting figure and I wanted to get to know more about her by undertaking the task of expanding and fixing up this article. I think it has gone quite well! Thanks for the compliment, Happyme22 (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Brighton bombing

"she delivered her speech as planned in defiance of the bombers, a gesture which won widespread approval across the political spectrum" is apparently sourced by "The Downing Street Years" pages 379 to 383. While these pages do deal with the bombing and Thatcher's activities after it, I can find no reference to "widespread approval across the political spectrum". The nearest it gets to any reaction to Thatcher's presence at the conference is a colossal ovation when Thatcher (and others) walked on to the platform the conference at 9:30am, and this was quite some time before her speech was delivered. I have amended the sentence, changing the "as planned" to avoid any possible misleading meanings as her speech was actually changed as a result of the bombing. O Fenian (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What does this source say then, since the last one was totally bogus? O Fenian (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Reelected?

Personally, I would have said that she was re-elected, but maybe that's just me and all the other articles containing the word...or perhaps I am missing a point of policy on hyphen usage here? Eitherway, the article is protected so, um, if there is meant to be a hyphen there then someone with the appropriate user permissions may wish to add it (ctrl+F might help). Conjugate the verb to reelect --Tangent747 14:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Religion

There's nothing in the article on this but perhaps there should be. I think that the official line is that she was raised Methodist but became Anglican. Certainly she was married in a Methodist church, but since Denis had been divorced, it would have been difficult then for her to marry in the Church of England. However, although she latterly considered herself Anglican, according to Hugo Young in "One of Us", she was never comfirmed into the Church of England, and indeed despised the Anglican establishment for what she considered its "wet" views. Millbanks (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Denis Date of Birth Typo

Should read - 1915

In the infobox, we put the date of marriage, not the date of birth. But thanks for your interest! --Happyme22 (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Main photo

Placing this here from User talk:Darvit Chandhurai#Margaret Thatcher photo

• 
• 

Hi there, regarding a few recent edits you made to the Margaret Thatcher article over the main photo: You say that articles should show a recent photo of the subject as the main photo; may I ask you, then, why Nancy Reagan's photo is from 1981, Betty Ford's photo is from 1976, and Bill Clinton's photo is from 1993? They are all still living and more recent photos are available, but those are the official portraits of the subjects and therefore the best looking and most presentable. It does not necessarily matter about the age of the photograph (another example: Billy Graham).

The goal of main images is to introduce the subject of the article in a neat, professional way. The photo of Thatcher at Reagan's funeral in 2004 is an extremely cropped version of a high res pic; it shows her scowling and is not very professional. That said, it is not a bad photo and definitely belongs in the later life section, but it does not belong as the main pic.

I tried using that photo already a few months back, and, comparing it with photos of other prime ministers, I grew restless as there was not a good looking, professional, portrait-like image of Margaret Thatcher. I put in a request at the Graphics Lab (here) just to see what could be done with the best (and really only) available photos. That really didn't help much, so I contacted the Margaret Thatcher Foundation, and they provided me with a professional looking, upright image.

So that is the story. As was implied, I do not favor the change that you made. Based on the evidence above, it is incorrect to say that the most recent images of the subjects should be used. Please respond if you wish. My best, Happyme22 (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The photographs of Nancy Reagan, Betty Ford, and Bill Clinton should be updated as well. Photographs should show what people look like - not some artifical set up portrait that only ever looked like them once in a photographic studio. It should be reality - not obvious propaganda from the Margaret Thatcher Foundation. Scowling is what Thatcher usually did. She rarely smiled unless some photographer told her to. An even more recent and accurate photograph would be even better. --Darvit Chandhurai (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Artificial portrait? Propaganda? It sounds as if you don't know what you are talking about, my friend. The portrait is not fake, made up or anything like that. It is a good looking photograph of Margaret Thatcher, and here at this encyclopedia we are supposed to have good looking photographs of people. If doesn't matter where the photo comes from, who provided it or whatnot, as long as it is a free use photograph that it looks professional. "Scowling is what Thatcher usually did" -- I've assumed good faith earlier and my good faith in your actions is starting to quickly dwindle as it seems you have an alterior motive for advocating this photo over this one. The first one does not look professional, the second one does. I'm starting to feel that your personal beliefs regarding Thatcher are infringing on our ability to choose which photo to use. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you are incorrect, my friend, in saying that we should use the most up-to-date photos for everyone on Wikipedia. The reason why the pictures of Mrs. Reagan, Mrs. Ford, and Mr. Clinton have not changed is simply because those are the best looking, high resolution, well formatted photographs. And Please stop reverting me on the page. The burden is on the editor who replaces or changes material to show how it is pertinent you don't have a consensus to replace the image. Thanks. Happyme22 (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Unlike you, I have lived in Britain for her entire political career, as well as before and since. I am far more aware of her because unlike you, living in the U.S., I was seeing her on television and reading reports concerning her on a daily basis. "Scowling is what Thatcher usually did" is precisely true. It would be very obvious to you if you had lived in the same country as her for decades. The Maragaret Thatcher Foundation are extreme Thatacherites. It's like saying that the Nazi party have provided us with a really nice photo of Hitler. The priority is not nice looking photographs. It is accurate photographs. She has never looked like that apart from a visit long ago to the photographer's studio. It is obviously a staged photograph that was used for propaganda in order to try to give her a good image. That photographs is decades old. Have a look at photographs of how she looks now. You wouldn't recognise her if all you knew was the photograph you'd added. "And Please stop reverting me on the page." You don't have consensus on the page. I have shown how it is pertinent to change it. I don't have to agree with you or comply with what you want solely because you want me to. That's not how Wikipedia works. If you always want to get your way you'll have to set up your own web site. --Darvit Chandhurai (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I know perfectly well how Wikipedia works; I am an administrator. And I'm telling you that you need to establish a consensus to change the image. You have now been reverted twice by me and once by User:Galloglass -- that should tell you that there are objections to your edits. I don't care whether you have lived in Britain or not because that is irrelevant. Where the picture came from is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant to this discussion is whether or not to use a well formatted, well presented, upright, high resolution, professionally done photograph or whether to use one cropped from a picture of Ronald Reagan's funeral. I have seen recent pictures of Thatcher... so what? She is still the same woman and deserves to be well represented on one of the most frequently visted sites on the Internet. As I have attempted to explain to you, the age of the image is irrelevant; the presentation is what we are looking for. Happyme22 (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You keep on making changes to various sites without achieving any consensus. You are trying to impose double standards. You want people to discuss it, when they change what you have written. I already have. I don't agree with your views. I'm entitled to revert it. --Darvit Chandhurai (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

My friend, I recommend you read WP:CONSENSUS. While it is true that on Wikipedia, users are able to edit whatever they please, if one of those edits altered something on a page and is contested by another editor, the editor who made the change should, out of courtesy, take it to the talk page and explain why he/she believes their edit was beneficial. Then a consensus must be reached to make the change; if a concensus is not reached, the change should not be implemented. Consensus building is one of the core elements of editing Wikipedia. --Happyme22 (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You keep on making changes without achieving consensus. The propaganda photograph was added without consensus and has been challenged. Therefore you should justify its inclusion on the discussion page. You haven't done that. It is an obvious propaganda photograph that does not match reality. Wikipedia is about facts not propaganda. --Darvit Chandhurai (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me update: Another editor has reverted you. So that's two by me, one by Galloglass, and one by User:O Fenian. And this is somewhat beside the point on the image, but why did you revert me here? That edit was completely in line with Template:Infobox_Person#Parameters, section on spouse. Care to explain yourself? --Happyme22 (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Your version was misleading. --Darvit Chandhurai (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Happyme22. As in accordance with most other Wikipedia photos of national leaders, official and attractive photos should be used where available. Furthermore, I question the propriety of using an image taken at a funeral as a main article image. The argument that 'scouling is what Thatcher usually did' is not a good one, on two counts: 1) it is irrelevant in terms of picture-policy, and 2) it seems to betray the author's political bias. I understand and respect some of Darvit Chandhurai's arguments, but would also argue that a consensus in favour of the Foundation photo has now been reached. Kelestar (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with Darvit Chandhurai here - the photograph is unrepresentative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.210.26 (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you have both next to each other, in that way both sides of the divide are happy (or neither depending on which way you look at it). This makes it fairer.Willski72 (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Abortion

The following: "Thatcher was one of few Conservative MPs to support Leo Abse's Bill to decriminalise male homosexuality and voted in favour of David Steel's Bill to legalise abortion, as well as a ban on hare coursing", requires evidence supporting it. The current link is to a page on animal welfare that does not verify the claim that Thatcher was against hare coursing, and -- obviously -- does not mention homosexuality or abortion. This is particularly disgraceful given Thatcher's support for Section 28, a nasty piece of anti-gay legislation. Moreover, her views on abortion offer extremely limited support, as comes out in this interview (http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=103793): "Abortion only applies to the very, very early days, but the idea that it should be used as a method of birth control I find totally abhorrent"; abortion after these "very, very early days" is restricted to cases where the mother's life is endangered: "you may have to take the life of the child in order to save the life of the mother, but that is a medical judgment." Thus either this statement should be substantiated with links, or it should be removed, as it is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jma71 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really agree that the statement in the article is misleading, but a fuller explanation in the text might well be of benefit to casual readers unfamiliar with the historical context. Here’s a quotation from her memoirs which clarifies her attitude towards homosexuality and abortion and could be used as a source if someone cares to add to the relevant section in the article:

Margaret Thatcher, The Path to Power (London: HarperCollins, 1995), p. 150: ‘By now (1968) the left-of-centre consensus on economic policy was being challenged and would continue to be. But the new liberal consensus on moral and social matters was not. That is to say that people in positions of influence in government, the media and universities managed to impose metropolitan liberal views on a society that was still largely conservative morally. The 1960s saw in Britain the beginning of what has become an almost complete separation between traditional Christian values and the authority of the state. Some politicians regarded this as a coherent programme. But for the great majority, myself included, it was a matter of reforms to deal with specific problems, in some cases cruel or unfair provisions. So it was that I voted in 1966 for Leo Abse’s Bill proposing that homosexual conduct in private between consenting adults over twenty-one should no longer be a criminal offence. In the same year I voted for David Steel’s Bill to allow abortion if there was substantial risk that a child would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped, or “where the woman’s capacity as a mother would be severely overstrained”. On both these issues I was strongly influenced by my own experience of other people’s suffering. For example, when I was a barrister I had been moved by the humiliation I had seen inflicted in the dock on a man of considerable local standing who had been found engaging in homosexual conduct.’

And here’s a quotation from an article in an academic journal which could be used as a reference for Section 28:

David M. Rayside, ‘Homophobia, Class and Party in England’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 25/1 (March 1992), p. 121: ‘In the spring of 1988, the British Parliament enacted a Local Government Bill, to which an amendment had been added prohibiting local authorities from “promoting” homosexuality. The final wording of section 28 was as follows: “A local authority shall not: (a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material for the promotion of homosexuality; (b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretend family relationship by the publication of such material or otherwise; (c) give financial assistance to any person for either of the purposes in paragraphs (a) or (b) above.” Until the Local Government Bill was passed into law, this section was referred to as Clause 28, although various changes in the bill during its parliamentary passage altered the number to 27 and 29. The amendment was thought to be encouraged by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (The Guardian, April 8, 1988).’ Lachrie (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Re hare coursing, the reference cited in the article checks out. The Animal Welfare Information Service web-page quotes Sir Richard Goodwin, Secretary British Field Sports Society, as follows: 'Before the 1970 election Margaret voted for the abolition of coursing and made it clear to me that she felt our vote on that night was an error.' I have also added another reference confirming her opposition to hare coursing: 'Hare coursing attack; League Against Cruel Sports', The Times (28 February 1989). Lachrie (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs inline citations --plange 20:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 21:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)