Talk:Margaret Thatcher

Alzheimers

A taboo word in a whitewashed article, one presumes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.209.12 (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess so! [1] Gandydancer (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not the Wikipedia article that is whitewashed - it is our world which refuses to talk about difficult topics. Please find notable sources that say Margaret Thatcher suffers alzheimers, and I am sure it will be added to Wikipedia. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Socialism and this article

I've noticed that certain right-wing editors of this article have stated that socialism is a fringe ideology - when in fact it's one of the core beliefs of the political Left!. That's a big problem with articles like this - supporters of her ideology police the article and keep the other side of the debate to a minimum. Paul Austin (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Liberalism is center left. Socialism is left and in totality when you include the center and right it is a fringe ideology. There are few communist countries, no democratic socialist countries and low memberships for both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.195.139 (talk) 14:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Hillsdale Thatcher.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hillsdale Thatcher.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

I do not see a section of criticisms of Thatcher on either this page or the Premiership of Margaret Thatcher although there are people claiming the articles are biased against her. In order for the article to be impartial it should include opposing viewpoints, in their own section if required. (Drn8 (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC))

I have seen it expressed elsewhere, and I am very much of the same opinion, that single-purpose "criticism" and "praise" sections are a bad idea. It's much better to work the reactions, positive and negative, into the main text of the article at the appropriate points. 86.176.210.14 (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Couple of suggestions

1. The word "for" should be deleted from the following sentence:

"In the 2001 general election Thatcher supported the Conservative general election campaign, but did not endorse Iain Duncan Smith as she had done for John Major and William Hague."

2. In the following sentence, the word "impacted" seems nondescript and evasive, like it was a compromise committee decision. Could we find a more decisive word?

"To her supporters, Margaret Thatcher remains a figure who revitalised Britain's economy, impacted the trade unions, and re-established the nation as a world power"

3. Is there any reason why the word "dementia" is not included anywhere in the article? Sadly, I believe that is her condition, is it not? 86.176.210.14 (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Regards, 86.176.210.14 (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 January 2012

She arrived at Oxford in 1943 and graduated in 1947 with Second Class Honours in the four-year Chemistry Bachelor of Science degree

She arrived at Oxford in 1943 and graduated in 1947 with Second Class Honours in Chemistry in the four-year Bachelor of Arts degree [the Bachelor of Science is not awarded by Oxford University as a first degree; this has more recently been superseded by the degree of Master of Chemistry (MChem)].

Mannersmakythman (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What's your source? --John (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

N Not done, needs a source--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit requests since 21 January 2012

The year of birth of Denis Thatcher is 1915 i/o 1951

222.124.199.10 (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done; thank you for spotting the error, the year has been fixed. Shuipzv3 (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The year indicated was the year Margaret Thatcher and Denis Thstcher got married, not Denis Thatcher's birth year. Shuipzv3 (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Under "Later years", it currently reads: "Thatcher returned to the backbenches as MP for Finchley..." The abbreviation should not be used here, but rather the exact title: Member of Parliament (MP).

Edit request - the only female prime minister

The article says "The first female British prime minister and the longest-serving of the 20th century..." Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "The only female British prime minister and the longest-serving of the 20th century..." ?

--122.163.1.136 (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Dementia

Why doesn't this article mention her struggle with dementia? Here are some articles:

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7579352.stm
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/2614020/Margaret-Thatchers-mental-decline-revealed-by-her-daughter.html
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/25/margaret-thatcher-sufferi_n_121133.html
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086941/Margaret-Thatcher-dementia-The-Iron-Lady-didnt-know-David-Cameron-was.html --Sofffie7 (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't mention it because this whole article is little more than an apologia for Thatcher, and mentioning her dementia would be too "unflattering" of dear, sainted Margaret. It's fairly sickening, actually. RyokoMocha (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have added a reference and some text to the article that refers to Thatcher's daughter's revelation that her mother suffers from Alzheimer. Disease is nothing to be ashamed of imo. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The reference you added is a film review (here). Find a better reference. My understanding is that that dementia and Alzheimer's Disease are not the same thing – but I will certainly give way to an expert on the matter. Mr Stephen (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher is suffering from Alzheimer's. WWGB (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added your reference and a couple more to the article. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

We have to be careful with WP:BLPs. WWGB's article (Margaret Thatcher is suffering from Alzheimer's) is the only one of the three that actually says it. The opening paragraph is LONDON — So now it is official: like her late friend and comrade in arms Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher is suffering from Alzheimer's. According to her daughter Carol, dementia was first diagnosed eight years ago and the former prime minister's condition has been deteriorating gradually ever since. Except Carol Thatcher's book does not say that Thatcher senior has Alzheimer's. Dementia yes, but not Alzheimer's. Perhaps Carol gave interviews around the time of the book's publication that expanded a little? In which case, bring them on.

There seems to be a push on Ottawahitech's part to label people with diseases: he has labeled Muhammad Ali as a sufferer of Parkinson's Disease despite our article citing a ref that quotes one of his doctors I know for a fact that he does not have Parkinson's disease; he also labeled Robin Morgan as suffering from Alzheimer's even though there is no mention of it in our article. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

POV problems

This article consistently downplays criticism of Thatcher, to the point of only giving a paragraph to the community charge which caused rioting, and was one of the big forces in ending her premiereship. There's lots of other examples, for instance, in "Legacy" there's a paragraph beginning "To her supporters". The views of her detractors are left out. It also has some odd anglocentricism - The word "Scotland" is only mentioned twice and the hatred she generated by putting her community charge into Scotland a year before England/Wales isn't mentioned.

This article appears to be something of a whitewash. 86.** IP (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Which reliable sources do you propose to use to improve the article? --John (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Margaret Thatcher/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Basically, this article fails Criteria 4 (neutrality), and, through this, Criteria 3 (breadth). Thatcher was a very controversial politician, at the time and after, but the article actively minimizes this controversy. Some examples include the downplaying of the issues related to her being forced out of government - the Community Charge gets little more than a paragraph, and the issues surrounding it aren't discussed - and the Legacy section only giving space to her supporters, and leaving out almost all views of her detractors.

It's really more of an apologia than a neutral article. 86.** IP (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

To give some idea of how badly this has been gutted, here's how the section on the Poll tax continued before this article was last delisted for neutrality.

Thatcher's system of local taxation was among the most unpopular policies of her premiership with working class and poorer citizens unable to pay the new tax and some being sent to Prison for non payment. The central Government capped rates resulting in charges of partisanship and the alienation of small-government Conservatives. The Prime Minister's popularity declined in 1989 as she continued to refuse to compromise on the tax. Unrest mounted and ordinary British people young and old took to the streets to demonstrate, the demonstrators were met with horse mounted Police in riot gear and demonstration turned to riots at Trafalgar Square, London, on 31 March 1990; more than 100,000 protesters attended and more than 400 people were arrested.

A BBC Radio poll in September 1989 indicated that almost three-quarters of the public were also against water privatisation. Despite public opposition to the poll tax and the privatisation of water, electricity, and British Rail, Thatcher remained confident that, as with her other major reforms, the initial public opposition would turn into support after implementation. A MORI poll for the Sunday Times in June 1988 found that more than 60% of voters agreed that in the long term the Thatcher government's policies would improve the state of the economy, while less than 30% disagreed; although income inequality had increased: 74% of Britons said they were satisfied with their present standard of living, while only 18% were dissatisfied.

The article has apparently been gutted for ideological reasons; a revert to an appropriate version may save it. 86.** IP (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Very little of the first paragraph is supported by the references. Is the second worth checking or is it equally rubbish? Mr Stephen (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't refchecked; however, the point still stands: This article has less negative material than it did when it was delisted from GA for being biased in favour of Thatcher. If references need improving, that's a second issue, but both NPOV and good references are needed for GA. 86.** IP (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same article? I think all of the article is verifiable against references. Can you give specific examples of material that you do not think is supported by references? --John (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

My comment above was narrowly regarding the quoted paragraph (beginning 'Thatcher's system of local taxation') from the old version, not anything in the article as it stands. (Though that has issues.) Mr Stephen (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Procedural comment. I note that this has been raised as an individual reassessment, so User:86.** IP has offered to make the decision to delist (or not) here, if s/he believes, after discussion and possible fixes, that the article does not meet the criteria. If s/he would rather another editor take this responsibility, or if the outcome seems likely to be disputed, it may be preferable to convert this into a community reassessment. Geometry guy 00:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. While it is always possible to improve an article, I would like to raise a note of caution here. This is a biographical encyclopedia article about Margeret Thatcher, the living person. It is not an article about her government, nor privatization, nor Thatcherism, nor the legacy of that government. Earlier versions of this article suffered badly from recentism and lack of focus: see the previous community GAR. The article was not "gutted" for ideological reasons, but rewritten for encyclopedic ones: it was riddled with poor sourcing and partisan material on all sides. Yes, there is a place for critical views in this article, and they should be presented with due weight according to reliable secondary sources. There are almost certainly some remaining imbalances in the article, as no article is perfect. If so, concrete examples should be provided, backed up by reliable secondary sources, and then we can improve the article. Geometry guy 00:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really find it hard to accept the argument that one of the most divisive Prime Ministers of the 20th century doesn't need to have any discussion about the opposition to her. A politician's career is inherently bound up in his or her policies. 86.** IP (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course she does: now what discussions would you like to add, and what reliable secondary sources should these discussions be based upon? Geometry guy 00:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with what appears to me to be User:86.**'s narrowly political focus, as this is a BLP. I also think that Thatcher is far too controversial a figure for this disagreement to be dealt with by an individual GAR. I've done very many individual GARs in my time, but this is definitely one I wouldn't have touched; it needs more than just one editor's opinion. And if User:86.**'s decision is to delist it, then there will inevitably be a community GAR anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the political issue is the neutrality problem. This article is well-written overall, but completely whitewashing her political career cannot be justified under NPOV policy. 86.** IP (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is about her, not her political career. NPOV has nothing to do with it. Malleus Fatuorum 04:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It absolutely does if Premiership of Margaret Thatcher is used as a POV fork to hide all the negative information. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Please remind yourself of the definitions of POV fork and Summary style before casting aspersions. Thanks, Geometry guy 10:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The GA review was a joke in my opinion, and caused me to ignore this page for quite a while in case I was viewed as disruptive when consensus said it was neutral. Take for example this section of the talk page on the exact version GA was passed on. There is the relevant section of the article on the exact version GA was passed on. Well look at that, despite the problems with that particular sentence being spelled out on the talk page at the time of the review the GA was passed???? It has since been fixed admittedly, but are we really supposed to take a GA review seriously when things like that don't even get checked? Kind of busy for the next couple of days, but after that you can expect another in-depth critique of this embarrassment of an article. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Those talk page comments (from 2010!) contributed to the delisting of the article, after which it was substantially revised, and re-reviewed, so why should anyone expect the discussion to be still relevant? Do you expect a review to trawl back through the talk page history of the article? Even as the editor posting that comment, you only found an issue that is no longer relevant! Do try to keep up to date, even if you are "kind of busy". I look forward to your in-depth critique, preferably based on reliable sources, and without hyperbole. Thanks, Geometry guy 10:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and say this isn't going to get fixed in any reasonable time, so delisted for neutrality issues. There's simply no way an article which minimises all discussion of a controversial political leader's controversial acts can be considered neutral or complete, particularly when it does include quite a bit of praise from her supporters. 86.** IP (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't going to get "fixed" in the rather peculiar sense that you seem to mean that word at all, ever. But it is of course within your prerogative to delist this article, and as soon as you do I'll be listing it for a community reassessment. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Chemist vs Pharmacist

The article makes it perfectly clear that her degree was in chemistry, not pharmacy, which has always been my understanding. Therefore the statement in the second paragraph: "Originally a chemist (pharmacist)" is plainly wrong. Pharmacists are commonly called chemists in the UK, but that is a misnomer and the reverse is certainly not correct and is never used. The bracketed word should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharmagiles (talk • contribs) 21:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I wrongly thought the article was protected and have now made the change, presuming it should not be controversial. Pharmagiles (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted, good move. She was a chemist, not a pharmacist. --John (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Restoration of problematic material in article

With this edit user John restored a slew of problematic material which I had removed. The reason it is problematic seems to be fairly obvious:

• The Clive James quote is 1) in too much detail 2) too trivial and 3) inappropriate as it makes fun of a physical characteristic.
• There are numerous examples of off-topic information (do we really need biographical details about Anthony Fisher, where Olivier founf the voice coach, and what David Steele also thought about an issue?) Why reinstate this?
• Unsourced, negative, fringe assertions that sail very close to the wind of POV pushing, in particular this: Critics have regretted Thatcher's influence in the abandonment of full employment, poverty reduction and a consensual civility as bedrock policy objectives. Many recent biographers have been critical of aspects of the Thatcher years and Michael White, writing in New Statesman in February 2009, challenged the view that her reforms had brought a net benefit. Despite being Britain's first woman Prime Minister, some critics contend Thatcher did "little to advance the political cause of women", either within her party or the government, and some British feminists regarded her as "an enemy". Her stance on immigration was perceived as part of a rising racist public discourse, which professor Martin Barker called "new racism".

I think there are clear reasons why such information should not be included in the article. Jprw (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah no, it indicates the effort she put in to make herself more 'presentable' (in the recorded media sense). Mr Stephen (talk) 08:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Clive James quote per se is not essential but the effort she put into her elocution is highly noteworthy. Rewording this might be acceptable but wholesale removal will not be. --John (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Problematic paragraph

I've pulled this, as it seems to have problems as a use of the source:

Thatcherism remains a potent byword in British political parlance, with both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown defining policies in post-Thatcherite terms, and David Cameron saying after a dinner with Thatcher in February 2009: "You have got to do the right thing even if it is painful. Don't trim or track all over the place. Set your course and take the difficult decisions because that is what needs to be done ... I think that influence, that character she had, that conviction she had, I think that will be very important."

First of all, the wording is very close to the source, http://www.economist.com/node/13570177 - to the possible point of counting as a close paraphrase, which is bad. Secondly, there are major issues of fact from the changes.

1. "Thatcherism remains a potent byword in British political parlance" - I'm not quite sure the article justifies this, but that's arguably alright. The article is more about Thatcher's legacy than the concept of Thatcherism, which are slightly different things.

2. "defining policies in post-Thatcherite terms," - this is part of a very close paraphrase, the change was "New Labour" to "policies". But that's the problem - New Labour is a political party, "policies" are something completely different.

3. It cuts out key information that challenges the view being presented. For instance, "Paradoxically, when David Cameron and his small group of modernisers seized control of the Tory party just over three years ago, they believed that weaning it from its infatuation with some of Thatcherism’s harsher themes was a necessary condition of electoral revival." and "Mr Brown is eager to contrast his activism in mitigating the worst effects of the downturn with the brutal indifference of the Thatcher government during the recession of 1980-82." - It's highly misleading to quote only the bits praising Thatcher, and leave out the negative material, particularly as it gives a misleading view of the political leaders' opinions of her to present only the positive half.

4. I'm not sure how much the quote adds here. Is the legacy section devoted to anything anyone says in praise of Thatcher, no matter how relevant? 86.** IP (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'll ignore the snarky conclusion there (4) and just deal with the substance of your suggestions. If the writing is too close to the source it is perfectly ok to rewrite it or paraphrase it. If the selection of what to quote seems too one-sided it is perfectly ok to include more negative material from the same quote. I believe it is an excellent source and it would be a shame not to use it. --John (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree the source is fine, it's just this specific use of it that's problematic. However, while I may have been blunt about the quote, I do think that a Prime Minister saying nice things about a former PM of the same party just after having dinner with her is... incredibly trivial; barring a couple more sources showing that the quote has ongoing validity, I can't view it as worth including in an overview. But I just pulled out some other text, so had best write that up. 86.** IP (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Keay quote

Pulled this here for discussion. {{quotebox| Thatcher remarked to the reporter Douglas Keay, for Woman's Own magazine in September 1987:

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand "I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or "I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations.

As it stands, I have nothing against this quote. But it was in the Legacy section, which... well...

...It's nothing to do with her legacy, surely? Perhaps we could put it into the section on her premiership, as it seems to be a very good precis of her views on social welfare and such. Add a small amount of context and analysis, and it'd be great. 86.** IP (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• It could perhaps be relocated but it seems to me it is a crucial part of her legacy; such words would have been unthinkable before she uttered them, but instantly became defining parts of what she was known for and redefined the political spectrum in Britain. I am open to discussion (preferably not just between us two) about this but I have restored the quote meantime. --John (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I can see your point, but it desperately needs a little sourced analysis; I don't think you can just put up a quote from someone. By the way, to be clear, I think once we contextualise that quote, the Legacy section's pretty much sorted. 86.** IP (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I found a good source which discusses this. --John (talk) 07:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hillsdale College statue

Is this sufficiently notable to include? 86.** IP (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not that keen on it myself. I would be happy to remove it, but I would like to see other views too. --John (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is notable in the WP sense. I can't find any non-trivial independent coverage of it. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it per this discussion. Could we also remove "Other awards include Dame Grand Cross of the Croatian Grand Order of King Dmitar Zvonimir" on similar grounds? --John (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It MIGHT be alright, if moved to the section discussing her actions in Croatia. 86.** IP (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Restoring contentious / fringe / off-topic / material

With this edit user John restored material which I had removed. He also left the comment on my talk page I am disappointed that you again removed material which is referenced to reliable sources and which was agreed by consensus. Could you please wait for a new consensus to form before removing it again?. It seems that the "referenced to reliable sources" comment here is a bit of a smokescreen, as the material is problematic, for a number of reasons. As for "agreed by consensus", I am surprised by this, since basic WP:BLP principles seem to have been violated. These are the parts I removed, and why I did so:

• Thatcher began to attend lunches regularly at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), a think tank founded by the poultry magnate Antony Fisher, a disciple of Friedrich von Hayek. I changed this to: Thatcher began to attend lunches regularly at the Institute of Economic Affairs, a think tank founded by Antony Fisher. Since the rest appears to be unnecessary detail (the reader can surely find out more by clicking on the links)
• I removed the Clive James reference because it is concerned with a physical aspect of Thatcher, is trivial and gossipy, and pejorative. It also looks incongruous in an encyclopedic entry about a major historical figure where the reader might expect to find weightier material of greater import. I suggest that all that is necessary re: her presentation / change in voice is: Thatcher worked on her presentation under the advice of Gordon Reece, who was recommended a voice coach by Laurence Olivier (also removing all the weasly "met by chance" type language)
• I changed Thatcher reacted to this by branding the Labour government as "chickens", and Liberal Party leader David Steel joined in, criticising Labour for "running scared" to: Thatcher reacted to this by branding the Labour government as "chickens". Why on earth do we need to know what David Steele thought about this issue?
• I removed: Her stance on immigration was perceived as part of a rising racist public discourse, which professor Martin Barker called "new racism". This is probably the most serious of the lot: This is a fringe view (from an individual who does not have his own WP article and seems to be some obscure Marxist academic) is being given undue weight, and via a sly process of synthesis dangerously misrepresents the subject as being some kind of neo-rascist. So I would suggest that for WP: WEIGHT, WP: FRINGE, WP: SYNTHESIS, and WP:BLP reasons it has to go.

I invite editors to specifically address the individual points that I make above. As a general comment, it seems that the material above is in violation of basic WP tenets and that there are clear grounds for it not to be included in the article. And I wonder whether one of the reasons the article was demoted from FA / GA status was that inferior material like this was added? Jprw (talk) 06:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree with everything you say above. Let's see what others think. Meantime could you stop removing material you don't like until you can generate a new consensus? --John (talk) 08:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with everything you say above -- it would have been nice to hear your reasons (to take one example, could you specifically state why David Steele's opinion on the above issue, which you have reinstated twice, needs to be in this article?). I'm surprised indeed that you can't see the above material as being at least a bit problematic. Usually in cases like this an editor's antipathy towards the subject is preventing them from being able to assess information objectively and rationally. You also invoke WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather cheaply and quite unfairly, instead of addressing the serious issues I raise regarding relevance, weight, WP: FRINGE, WP: SYNTHESIS, and WP:BLP. Jprw (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you may have a point with the David Steel bit (though it only takes a few words, and I don't see anything inherently wrong with providing a little more context for Thatcher's actions, since it was, in the end, part of a three-party dispute).

However, her accent seems to have been fairly notable at the time - for instance, looking at contemporary satires the third part of The True Confessions of Adrian Albert Mole is a supposed diary of Thatcher as a child, with a huge chunk of the satire having to do with Margaret's attempts to lose her accent. (Speaking of which, shouldn't that be in the cultural references? It's certainly more mainstream than statues in some random minor American college.) Perhaps more to the point, [This is a Guardian article reproduced at University College London ]- "For post-war grammar-school boys and girls, accent had other meanings. For Harold Wilson it was the appropriate possession of the meritocrat. Traditionally ambitious grammar-school pupils would try to escape their localities, and therefore their accents. Most famous is Mrs Thatcher, whose elocution lessons are usually mentioned condescendingly or mockingly. It does seem reasonable to satirise her later speech-training when already prime minister. At the behest of her PR adviser Gordon Reece, she worked away to remove perceived stridency from her voice. Her childhood elocution training, however, would have been standard for many grammar-school pupils with ambitious parents - the equivalent of music lessons." and later "Though not mentioned in her autobiography, the clever Grantham girl's grocer father forked out for elocution lessons - decades later yet more lessons were needed." - I think a case can be made that this is a notable part of Thatcher's life.

As for the racism bit; well, we have an article on the term, New racism, which references this book by Chin, which describes the work of Martin Barker favourably, with some expansions and useful clarification. Perhaps we could work this source in? There's also a couple other sources I found in a very quick search:

• The Guardian (explicitly calls her behaviour [in a specific instance] racist)
• The New Statesman (implication; probably not useful as a source as it seems to view it as common knowledge)

...and I'm sure that if five minutes' search found those, much more could be found. In particular, there's a Time article http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,948011,00.html - that looks like it may well be a fantastic source, but it's behind a paywall. If someone has Time at their library, I'd like to see it.

So, yeah, I think that beefing up the sources would be better. I think the ones I provided will be a good start. 86.** IP (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Checked a little more. Forgive me if these links don't work. All quotes are approximate, since I cannot copy paste, and expect you to check the source.

The Rise of New Labour: Party Policies and Voter Choices - Page 58 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-lYmlK-oesoC&pg=PA58&dq=Margaret+Thatcher+racism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hopPT5u-JI7D8QOYk73wBQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Margaret%20Thatcher%20racism&f=false "some writers have seen signs of racism in Thatcher's language... particularly when she talked about being "swamped" by immigrants"... however, the Conservative party has generally distanced self from overt racism."

Racism, the City and the State, page 140 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=25XDeOjKjdYC&pg=PA140&dq=Margaret+Thatcher+racism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hopPT5u-JI7D8QOYk73wBQ&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Margaret%20Thatcher%20racism&f=false - two long paragraphs, basically, Thatcher's views on immigration encouraged racism by portraying national identity as under attack.

Racism after 'race relations', pp. 75-76 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IgUAdOIFudUC&pg=PA75&dq=Margaret+Thatcher+racism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hopPT5u-JI7D8QOYk73wBQ&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Margaret%20Thatcher%20racism&f=false - I'd rather not try to summarise this one; it's a somewhat complicated argument about Thatcher's views on national identity and immigration, the Falklands, and other issues.

Now, obviously, these are searches for "Margaret Thatcher racism". This may well give a biased selection of results, so I'd encourage looking at any mainstream, neutral biographies you have to see how they treat her views on national identity and immigration; if they treat it vastly differently, we need to find balancing sources. However, put bluntly, I'm finding tons and tons of sources on these lines. Perhaps the sensible thing is to just have a small section on her views on immigration and national identity, and deal with it in the nuanced detail of these sources, instead of just bluntly referencing New racism without explaining. Overspill can go into New racism most likely. 86.** IP (talk)

All the links you adduce above are extremely tenuous and are a classic example of synthesis. It is very dangerous indeed and a clear violation of WP:BLP to smear subjects like this. You can probably also find plenty of other sources (fringe / far left) out there that pander to the equally false but equally damaging canard that she is a fascist. The reference to "New Racism" stems solely from this which seems to be an opinion that has been put forward by one Marxist academic (who doesn't have his own WP article) 30 years ago. I repeat: for reasons of WP: WEIGHT, WP: FRINGE, WP: SYNTHESIS, and WP:BLP this cannot be included; only someone with an antipathy towards the subject would wish to include it. Jprw (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? Multiple scholarly books discuss it, but you claim it's tenuous? Did your read the pages of books linked? 86.** IP (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did read them, and you appear to not understand what synthesis means. It seems that your antipathy towards the subject (as evidenced, for example, by this edit) is causing you to not be able to appraise information objectively. Jprw (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I can only presume you're trolling at this point, and will not respond further. Any reasonable person, without a<n agenda, who read those sources would say that explicit discussions of Thatcher, immigration, and racism are usable to discuss it in the article. 86.** IP (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll ignore the bizarre "trolling" accusation and repeat: you appear to not understand what synthesis means. Jprw (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It's explicitly stated in plain language in some of the sources. It's not synth to accuratelty summarise what multiple sources say. I can only presume you haven't botheredd to read them, or are trolling. Indeed, you even admit it's an accurate depiction of Barker's views, I pointed out sourcess discussing Barker's and similar views, and suggested a more nuanced approach, you instead make a bizarre - and false - accusation of synthesis. I don't think you have anything useful to add to this discussion. 86.** IP (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Your grasp of these concepts seems to be a bit shaky, so unfortunately I'm going to have to spell it out for you. Here is the WP definition of synthesis: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. What you want to do with the above sources would be a classic (almost textbook) case of synthesis, as the inference (both potentially libellous and misrepresentative, by the way) is only speculated to / alluded to or not explicitly stated. You seem to be more interested in slinging Internet slang insults around than in engaging in rationale debate. The standard of discourse on this page is disappointing, and of course the generally shoddy standards being upheld by editors (I'll refrain from the farcical use of the word "Consensus" which User "John" loves to hide behind so much) are of course being reflected in the article itself. Jprw (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You clearly have not read the sources; they do explicitly make the conclusion in the article (that Barker called it "new racism"), and make further points that can be used to expand and clarify the consensus on that position. Even Campbell's relatively restrained quote still talks about her being prejudiced against foreigners. If you want to take all these sources, and make a fair, balanced explanation of the various views, that would be fine. You instead want to exclude material which all sources offer some insight into, based, not on any proposed clarification on your part, nor based on anyone's proposal, but because you don't like what the sources say. Therefore, there is no point engaging with you, you are not trying to debate in good faith. Hell, there cannot be Synth when I've, so far, only put up sources we can use to revise the text and asked for others; noone has yet proposed the revisions, because you're occupying all our time apparently using psychic powers to guess at what might emerge from this discussion. 86.** IP (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You're not making any kind of sense. But as for Barker, that is a fringe / obscure view. Here is the first line of the WP policy on FRINGE: Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article about a fringe theory should not make it appear more notable than it is. Again, it cannot be included, and another basic WP tenet is being violated. I suggest that you try and concentrate on making the discussion revolve around how the material may or may not be in violation of WP tenets – then we might start getting somewhere. Of course, your insistence on including material as problematic as this is evidence of your antipathy towards the subject. Perhaps you should do the honourable thing and recuse yourself, as otherwise you are bound to muddy the waters with problematical POV editing. Jprw (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

We have two sources quoting Barker's ideas at the moment. Things aren't Fringe just because you say so; you need to recuse, you are the only person arguing for the views you espouse. 07:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

We have two sources quoting Barker's ideas at the moment You are doing exactly what user John did earlier – failing to grasp that issues related to WP: WEIGHT, WP: FRINGE, WP: SYNTHESIS, and WP:BLP outweigh WP:RS in this instance. Both of you, this self-styled "consensus" have also consistently failed to deal during this "debate" with how the material which I flag above does not violate WP: WEIGHT, WP: FRINGE, WP: SYNTHESIS, and WP:BLP, etc. Jprw (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No editor is Moses. This discussion is a good example of editors talking past each other with policies getting in the way of mutual understanding rather than helping to improve the article. Geometry guy 20:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

JPRW, I think that it was not John who violated principles of the wikipedia but it was you. You removed essential material without first seeking a consensus, that's what John complained about and he's right. You can't simply delete material because you personally don't like it, which seems to be your main reason to do so. You claim that the material you deleted came from an "obscure Marxist academic". That sounds more of a smokescreen, much more so, than John's request to first discuss those deletions. Your arguments sound to me as if you are deftly right wing and somewhat intolerant to any other views. It's your right to be a Tory of course but please DO let other people think differntly! --Krawunsel (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

My political allegiances are irrelevant. All my objections are based on the fact that the above material is in clear violation of basic WP tenets. Jprw (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sure there is a compromise to be reached if we can discuss civilly here. You are right that our political allegiances should be irrelevant. --John (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

A good place to start would be to try to avoid language of the playground such as "nice snark" and try to explain (coolly, rationally, and thoroughly), how the material I flag above is not either off-topic or in violation of WP: WEIGHT, WP: FRINGE, WP: SYNTHESIS, and WP:BLP. Jprw (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

John Campbell's biographies of Thatcher are well thought of. Bits of them are viewable at google books. On racism, we can do worse than start with Campbells words (here): "In fact Mrs Thatcher was remarkably free of race prejudice. She was no more prejudiced against Africans than she was against Germans, Greeks, Italians and others who had the misfortune not to be British: her approach to South Africa was based far more on politics than on colour. She had always thought apartheid ‘irrational and bad economics’…" etc. Mr Stephen (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There we are. A well-respected biography of the subject goes out of its way to state that racist leanings in MT were conspicuously absent; nevertheless, editors insist that a tenuous (and potentially libellous) reference from an obscure Marxist academic can be included. And users accuse me of having an agenda! If this is the standard of debate here and these are the opinions being pushed then I am left with no choice but to put a POV banner up. Jprw (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

And several other sources making various claims, two of which back Barker's interpretation. 86.** IP (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Very, very, tenuous; overall this is a non-issue and related material should not be included in the article. Jprw (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think, with all due respect JPRW, that you are in a minority of one at the moment. That's usually an indication that your interpretation is out of step with consensus. --John (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Harv errors

Using User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js, I found some Harv errors:

• Footnotes: Refs 1, 31, 39, 45, 52, 141, 227 do not point to a full reference.
• Bibliography: Chin 2009, Thatcher 1997, Erickson 2005, Foley 2002, Glyn 1992, Jones 1999, Kavanagh 1997, Lacey 2003, Toye & Gottlieb 2005, Williams 1998 do not have footnotes pointing to them.

I suspect most of these problems overlap, but I thought I would point them out. Clay^Clay_Clay 20:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I fixed them. What does the script say now? Mr Stephen (talk) 22:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

141 still doesn't point, for some reason (it looks right...); changing 229 to harv style would eliminate the problem with Chin 2009. Suggest you search in the footnotes for the uncited entries in the bibliography. Clay^Clay_Clay 23:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

141 needed 'ref=harv' Mr Stephen (talk) 23:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Chin might not be needed much longer, but I have changed it. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC) PS I can live with the unused refs (others may disagree).

Okay, that is fine, all the errors I saw were fixed. If nobody cares about the unused refs being there, they can stay, I just thought to bring it up. Clay^Clay_Clay 00:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Help 1 March

Spelling of "privitisation" -- should be "privatization" or "privatisation"

Y Done Thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone for Dennis

I've just seen that with this edit User John has reinstated clearly off-topic information that centres around the subject's husband, and hence clearly belongs in Dennis Thatcher's article. As there appears to be no justification for this whatsoever I am going to remove it again. Jprw (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see how you can think that. Political satire using a third person as the observer is hardly uncommon, but doesn't make them the target any more than the various satirical diaries of powerful people's pets are really about the pets. 86.** IP (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I am with 86.** IP here. It is only clear to you that this is off-topic information. Everybody else thinks it is relevant to Thatcher. For the third time I counsel you to wait for a new consensus to form before removing material from this article. The current consensus definitely supports retaining this material. --John (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Presumably it was precisely consensuses of this sort that caused the article to degrade from FA to GA to its current sorry state. Jprw (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice snark, Jprw. Here's a thought experiment for you. Would the Private Eye and other media have run this material for years if Denis Thatcher had not been married to "the leaderene"? So, do you really think this satire was principally focused on him, or do you think it was mainly aimed at his famous wife? --John (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You are utterly wrong. Have you ever read a "Dear Bill" letter from Private Eye? The focus is very much on him, i.e. Dennis's views, his mannerisms, peccadilloes, his coterie (not including his wife, only rarely and in passing) and the person he is writing to. The material belongs in the DT article, therefore, and not here; according to your logic, her daughter's appearance in I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here! should be included as well. Do you understand now? Jprw (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Pop Culture References

In the forward to the tradeback copy of V for Vendetta (circa 2007), Alan Moore admits his view of a dystopian dictatorship is/was partially shaped by the failings and inequities of Thatcher's England, ending it with the phrase, "England isn't a nice place to ben anymore." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freethegoats (talk • contribs) 06:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this is referenced in the V for Vendetta wiki article: The political climate of Britain in the early 1980s also influenced the work,[4] with Moore positing that Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government would "obviously lose the 1983 elections", and that an incoming Michael Foot-led Labour government, committed to complete nuclear disarmament, would allow the United Kingdom to escape relatively unscathed after a limited nuclear war. However, Moore felt that fascists would quickly subvert a post-holocaust Britain.

Exact quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freethegoats (talk • contribs) 06:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that is relevant to the V for vendetta article but not to this one. --John (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, there's probably not enough direct connection, since the chain is something like Thatcher->Thatcher's premiership->1980s British culture->Dystopian future based on Moore's opinions of where that culture is going. If there's documented direct Thatcher references in V for Vendetta (I haven't read it), that might be worth mentioning, but being inspired by what was then contemporary culture isn't really direct enough. 86.** IP (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable cruft?

I can't see how the following adds anything whatsoever to the article.

In September 2011, Thatcher attended the 50th birthday party of the then Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, at his official ministerial apartment in Admiralty House; Fox commented "it was great having two Prime Ministers at my 50th birthday party this evening [Margaret Thatcher and David Cameron]".

It's just something she went to. People go to parties. She went to one. Nothing of any use is added to the article by mentioning it here - I suppose it might be useful in Liam Fox's article, if she and/or Cameron said anything about him, but I can't see it as relevant here, particularly with such a pointless quote. 86.** IP (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't see how it adds anything either, so get rid of it. Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

... I just did. Malleus Fatuorum 15:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

GA status

Just to note, with the recent revisions, I'm fine with this returning to GA status. I had my concerns (and was not happy with the reassessment being framed as an attack on me) but I think that it's only fair to state that the problems are fixable, and further problems can easily be discussed. 86.** IP (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside for one moment your rather paranoid-sounding claim, I think that it would undermine WP GA standards for this article to be given GA status. There are real concerns re: POV, WEIGHT, FRINGE, and LEAD. It also needs a copy edit to remove numerous instances of off-topic material and weasley language (I have tried to do this on three occasions, but User John has reinstated the material, without providing specific reasons for doing so when asked). For details re: all these issues (apart from LEAD, basically, her post-PM career / life needs summarising in a couple of sentences, with the last one being something along the lines of "Thatcher suffered a stroke in 2003 and due to continued ill health has maintained a limited public profile in recent years"), see above. Jprw (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You have been unable to get anyone to agree with you on those opinions. (And, as an aside, it's not paranoid: Malleus explictly attacks me at the start of the GAR). 86.** IP (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)