Talk:Margaret Thatcher

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)

split article(s)

Maybe do a Later career of Margaret Thatcher and/or Legacy of Margaret Thatcher.--Levineps (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. At 46 kB (7571 words) readable prose size the article is well within WP:SIZE guidelines and is an appropriate length for a major world political figure like this. There is already a separate article Premiership of Margaret Thatcher, which is obviously necessary, but I think Happyme22 has done a good job on organizing the post-PM sections of the article. Biographical subarticles have very low readership and I don't think the effort to additional ones here is warranted. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Wasted Time, no need to split --Snowded (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree with WTR and Snowded. Just about everyone reads the main article and the value of much of this material may be lost by splitting it out. Happyme22 (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Iron Lady

Thatcher earned the title Iron Lady as an ironic twist as she opposed the Soviet or 'Iron' curtain and the Soviet press gave her the above nickname

SJHQC (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the article says that. Happyme22 (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

While although the article does state that she earned the title due to her opposition to the Soviets it does not say who gave her the title

92.251.148.110 (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Iron Lady nickname was coined in an article published in the Red Star (24 January 1976). Here's a source: Margaret Thatcher, The Path to Power (London: HarperCollins, 1995) p. 362: 'A stream of crude invective flowed from the different Soviet propaganda organs. But it was some apparatchik in the office of Red Star, the Red Army newspaper, his imagination surpassing his judgement, who coined the description of me as "The Iron Lady".' Here's another: Margaret Thatcher, Speech at Kensington Town Hall ("Britain Awake") (The Iron Lady), 19 January 1976. Margaret Thatcher Foundation. Lachrie (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's (also) a reference to the Duke of Wellington, of course. Like Wellington at Waterloo, she was in the habit of wearing ferrous underpants. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

European Community

90.28.20.103 (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.28.20.103 (talk)

The middle of the three paragraphs under the heading 'European Community' needs moving to a completely separate section headed either 'Council of Europe' or 'European Court of Human Rights' or 'European Convention on Human Rights'. The Council of Europe (with the Convention as its primary legal instrument and the Court which rules on alleged breaches) has nothing whatsoever to do with the European Community/European Union and leaving the paragraph which discusses the ECHR under the 'European Community' heading and between two paragraphs which are about the Community/Union continues to misinform the vast majority who think that they are one and the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.28.20.103 (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If there is any misinformation, as 90.28.20.103 asserts, in conflating 'European Community' with 'Council of Europe', why not simply revise the heading 'European Community' to 'Europe'? Heading revised.---PJHaseldine (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

European Court decision, split, etc.

I am a bit confused by the recent addition by User:PJHaseldine in the "Europe" section. The citation [1] says nothing of a policy split over the European Community extending to Parliament, then throws in the part about the British Constitution, presented by a left-wing British magazine with a weak chance of ever passing. I'm not sure of the point being made regarding the detention -- was it a major issue? Because the overviews of Thatcher's premiership that I've read fail to mention anything about it while they of course mention the split within her cabinet over the European Community. So I ask: how does this relate to Margaret Thatcher? And it is notable at all? --Happyme22 (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

After detailing the ECHR ruling, the cited New York Times article actually goes on to say: "Mrs Thatcher will meet with the leaders of Belgium and Ireland at a winter summit meeting of the 12-member European Community on the Aegean island of Rhodes at week's end [3rd/4th December 1988]. The court's judgment, came as the New Statesman society presented to Parliament a petition for a written British Constitution, signed by more than 200 public figures in the arts, education, entertainment and the law."

I recall that in political arguments over Europe at the time, the two European courts (Human Rights and Justice) were often confused both in the media and the public mind. Whenever a court judgment went against Britain, anti-Europe politicians (of all parties) would complain that European law was taking precedence over British law, and had to be reversed. This ruling must have been particularly galling for Mrs Thatcher, who was very critical of Belgium and Ireland for not extraditing the suspected terrorist.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In the overall context of her administration it was a relatively obscure event, and I think given too much coverage here, but it could perhaps be inserted into the premiership subarticle. Lachrie (talk) 05:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Government spending

The article is wrong on Margaret Thatcher's record on government spending.

The article states that Prime Minister Margarat Thatcher introduced "buget cuts" and reduced spending on "health care" and so on. This simply is not true. Government spending greatly increased (not decreased) after 1979. Even as a percentage of the economy (let alone in cash or real, inflation adjusted, terms). Although after 1983 the share of the economy taken up by government spending did go into decline - but government spending in either cash or real (inflation adjusted) terms, never did go into decline under Margaret Thatcher.

There seems to be the normal wikipedia fault of trusting to citations (rather than real fact checking) - puting in a source for "budget cuts" does not alter the fact that government spending went up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.103.83 (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any citations to back up your assertions? Thanks in advance, Happyme22 (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Happyme22 - this is exactly what is wrong with the wikipedia approach. Looking for "citations" rather than facts. The facts are easy to find - just look up the government spending numbers for the historical period (such things are on line now - for people who do not wish to use reference libraries).

But instead one (according to wikipedia) should point at some newspaper article (or whatever).

It really is odd - I complain about the reliance on citations (rather than checking the actual facts) and people say "do you have any citations for that". Although it may be humour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.122.5 (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added a table of % change in selected expenditures sourced from Lawson (1992). Lachrie (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms

Just a suggestion: *A criticisms subsection to clean up the arguments --Thelostlibertine (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Negative. It has been determined that criticism sections are overty in violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV (see WP:CRITICISM). Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Why then is there a Criticism of Tony Blair article?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 19:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That is a good question, because the Criticism of George W. Bush article was recently found to be in violation of NPOV and was merged with Public perception of George W. Bush. Happyme22 (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There should be some consistency on this. I think all controversial figures should have a criticism section. That said there is no criticism section on the page on Adolf Hitler!  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And that has relevance how? WP:OTHERSTUFF Soxwon (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a criticism section is only useful if there's pervasive bias in the main body of the article. In this case, there is, however I agree with the policy, it'd be far better to take steps towards dealing with the one-sidedness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.210.26 (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Photo Selection

I count twelve photos on the Thatcher page, of which only four are not with American presidents or other American officials or in American contexts. Would it be possible to get a wider selection, so that it did not appear that she's important only because she was good friends with Ron and Nancy Reagan? Jontomkittredge (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that works by US government employees (eg official photographers) are automatically placed in the Public Domain so we are free to use them with no legal hoops to jump through. UK official photographs will be under Crown Copyright, so can't easily be used (until 50 years after they were published anyway). If you can find someone who has a photo of her which they took and are prepared to upload under an appropriate license then fine. Otherwise the ones which are easily available to be used are likely to originate in the US. David Underdown (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Leader of the Opposition 1975-1979

If feel that the sentence "The Labour Government was running into difficulties with industrial disputes and rising unemployment, and eventually collapsing public services during the winter of 1978–79, popularly dubbed the "Winter of Discontent"." should be modified to read "dubbed by the media "The Winter of Discontent"."

This phrase may have become accepted later as a generally recognised discription of this period, but it wasn't in common use amongst ordinary people at the time, and it presents an unfair and simplistic view of what was actually going on at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.154.65 (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For most of it it was winter and a lot of people were discontented, sounds a pretty fair representation to me. Unless you want 'Period of time in which most public services went down the ******* and everyone was thoroughly fed up'. Besides this is what it is now commonly known as to the public in general.Willski72 (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Which public, Willski72? I remember roughly equal quantities of discontent either side of the election, and far more discontent in her later reign. However, these are all personal viewpoints, so irrelevant to this article. Although it's certainly true that the 'winter of discontent' was a media coinage, justified or not, (unfortunately) wikipedia seems to rely very heavily on established media for sources. Wouldn't it be best to cite the phrase to the article where it was first used? I think this is a serious problem in the article - the newspapers of Britain were (and still are, to some extent) massively divided over thatcher. Citing the extremes (The Sun, Telegraph, Guardian, etc) gives a very misleading impression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.210.26 (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that the media coined the phrase but the simple fact is that that is what it is now commonly known as. Perphaps a compromise could be reached such as "dubbed by the media and now often known as the Winter of Discontent." Whenever i hear about it or read about it (not just in newspapers) this is what it is called, i'm afraid its one of those names that sticks, like "black wednesday" for when Britain crashed out of the ERM in 1992. James Callaghan for example didnt actually say "crisis what crisis" but a lot of people i know would swear blind he did. You could quite reasonably argue that discontent was rife throughout the 70's and 80's especially in certain areas of Britain but for some reason that winter stuck in peoples minds, maybe because of the simple fact that it ushered in 18 years of Thatcherite Conservatism and 12 years of New Labour or maybe because of the Shakesperean flair of the name, no-one really knows.Willski72 (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Biased article

The entire article is riddled with bias - celebrating Thatcher's achievements, but not noting her failures. For instance, the 1 in 10 unemployment is almost omitted, despite the huge impact it had on Thatcher's reign. Also, her controversial attempt to introduce the poll tax - something that lead to widespread rioting, is not (?) mentioned. Not to go into her severe inroads into schools, universities, her cuts of funding to institutions - leaving theaters, museums and opera houses both barred to the poor and closing down. The crowning glory is presenting a Daily Telegraph (strong right wing) newspaper poll as an accurate reflection of the feelings of english people towards Baroness Thatcher. To call her 'well remembered' is beyond ridiculous, given the depth of bitterness towards the woman who, for many, destroyed British society. I'm afraid for this article, 'controversial' is simply sailing to close to the wind to be accurate. 'Widely disliked' would fit her exit from office better. Or 'senile'. Better still, would be to discuss her extreme polarization of english society.

(She's also the only Prime Minister I know of for whom large scale celebrations are planned the minute she finally kicks it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.210.26 (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I know many people who would agree with the above rant who would also say that Arthur Scargill was brilliant etc etc despite the fact that he plainly was not. I agree with the fact that criticisms should be more liberally dispersed within the article as there are quite a few however that is to be expected with someone who lasted as long and reformed as much as she did. I know another Prime Minister for whom massive celebrations are planned the moment he leaves office never mind dies! Give you a hint, the initials are GBWillski72 (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned user here - aren't personal opinions irrelevant? I don't think it matters what the contributors opinions are on Scargill or GB, or even Donald duck. Wikipedia should be objective - which means it should be well sourced, factually accurate, lacking weasel-words, and without discernable POV. As far as I can see, this article fails on all but the first of these criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.210.26 (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been reading through the article closely, and I've realized that either Margaret Thatcher had an incredibly smooth and popular reign, or this article was written by fans, rather than historians. I believe the first statement that could be construed as negative or controversial is around 500 words in, ("...and imposed public expenditure cuts.."), and includes the justification. The second ("Critics regarded the comment as a veiled reference") one section later, the third ("Civil unrest in Britain resulted in") includes the assertion (uncited) that calls for policy change were essentially media-only affairs, and ends in a touchingly triumphant note ("this lady's not turning"). The fourth is an entire paragraph of facts and figures, objective, (from "Thatcher lowered..." to "long term growth.") and ends in a quotation from a book entitled "..No Alternative: Why ... Thatcher Matters" (no need to guess the bias). The fifth is a reference to Oxford's 'deliberate snub', which is unique so far in that it is not ameliorated in any manner. The sixth reference to controversy is centered around the miner's strike, the "thousands of jobs" lost, and the scrapping of the shipyards. This includes a mention of an (apparently irrelevant) murder of a taxi driver, and a brief mention of violence at the strikes. The seventh, referring to the abolition of the GLC, appears to be another rare haven of relatively balanced coverage. The eighth, 'a skeptical british public', again makes attempt at balance, but rather simplistically blames the poll tax controversy on the local councils. In any case, this section should be expanded. The fall from power section, naturally, refers to negative public sentiment and general political turbulence. However, as is typical of this article, it fills out the gaps with charming Thatcher quotes. Of what relevance? No idea, but they look great. Anyhow, I've been laboring the point somewhat to ensure that my reading is as objective as possible, and that I note the good as well as the flawed. However, I believe the point I make is very clear. In some 6000 words in an article about the reign of the most influential, controversial and transformative politicians in modern british history, there are only nine instances where the article notes any furor over the incredibly sensitive issues that she tended to battle over. More incredibly, out of nine notes that fall short of triumph, five of these are muddied, countered, or ameliorated. Now either she was simply the most successful, diplomatic and smooth-operating prime-minister ever, or this article has major and correctable flaws. I propose a complete overhaul, beginning with removing a large amount of the Thatcher sound-bites and the references to opinionated biographies. This article would also be vastly improved if it stuck to objective facts, rather than arguments for and against specific issues. Finally, I propose that, given the polarized nature of the english press on Thatcher, they should either be considered (in this article) as unreliable sources, or they should have their political affiliation clearly marked.213.1.210.26 (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I second the above post, fairs fair after all. The poll tax was a relative disaster which was Thatcher's fault more than any other, most quotes are not necessary it should just keep those that most British people remember ("You turn if you want to..." etc), newspapers are biased FACT and so the political position each side took (some have changed since then) should be made clear. The violence surrounding the miners strike could do with being explained more with the violence of both sides put forward as fair as possible. (The taxi driver was actually killed by miners who threw a brick through his windscreen while he was taking a 'scab' to work.)Willski72 (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Also considering the amount of quotes by Thatcher, perphaps Geoffrey Howe's one in the House of Commons on resigning could be used, cant quite remember the wording but it was a devestating blow to her authority and really showed the divide beginning to open in her cabinet. (something about cricket!).Willski72 (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Negative criticism has to be balanced against the larger fact that although Margaret Thatcher received a lot of adverse and even hyperbolic commentary from articulate left-wing minorities (public sector, academia, unions etc) who were not among the recipients of her government's largesse, in political terms she was arguably the most successful prime minister in the twentieth century. More people today have a favourable opinion of her premiership than otherwise; according to The Times (26 April 2009): "47% think Thatcher in her prime would be better than Brown while 34% believe she would be worse. Her advantage over Cameron is even greater, with 49% saying she would be a better and 24% worse. People think she was right to cut the top rate of tax to 40% and curb unions, but say privatising gas, electricity, telecommunications and water was wrong.")

The quotations should be retained because they're concise and give a flavour of her populist style.

The article probably does need an overhaul with editors taking a more systematic, statistics-based approach. I've tried to make a start in this direction, but locating relevant figures online is difficult and time-consuming. Another major problem is that contributors keep adding political detail to this biographical article, instead of Premiership of Margaret Thatcher, where many of the controversies could be dealt with in greater depth. To discourage this tendency towards haphazard elaboration the political coverage of her three governments in this article needs to be drastically abridged and replaced with more prominent redirects, with detailed discussions of specific policies being transferred to subarticles. Lachrie (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily, Lachrie. Plenty of other political figures that have subarticles devoted to a specific point in the person's life have more general overviews of such periods in their own parent articles (as is done in this article). This is mainly because of overall readership. The overall majority of readers, when searching, search for 'Margaret Thatcher' if they want to learn more about her premiership. They don't usually search 'premiership of Margaret Thatcher'. You will see that according to the Wikipedia counter statistics, this article was viewed 154,463 times in April 2009[2] while Premiership of Margaret Thatcher was viewed 2,106 times in the same month.[3] -- there is a very large difference.

So to give readers as much information as we can within the guidelines of WP:WEIGHT, it is perfectly alright to include detailed information about her premiership in this article. Look at Ronald Reagan -- it is a featured article and, though it has daughter articles Presidency of Ronald Reagan, Domestic policy of the Reagan administration and Foreign policy of the Reagan administration, there is still a concise, and, in some parts detailed, account of Reagan's presidency in the main article. The same can and should be done here. Happyme22 (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Additions tend to accumulate in the biographical article. Many are superfluous to an understanding of the individual herself. We should try and transfer much of the policy detail as we can to the sub-articles, while retaining introductory summaries in the subsections here. Lachrie (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If we wanted evidence of bias then we only have to look at some of the above comments. Comparing Thatcher to Brown in the current context for example, do the same thing during the height of the Poll Tax and image the response. Saying that opposition was confined to the institutions of the articulate left who were not the recipients of her largesse at least provides some amusement. Some of the most devastating criticism came from her own party - "selling the family silver" for example. --Snowded (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a larger danger in emphasising opinions of special interests, because we lose perspective and can't see the wood for trees. To claim Macmillan's jibe that the government was making ends meet by 'selling the family silver' was 'devastating', without trying to measure the impact on opinion, suggests a political bias. Macmillan wasn't even criticising the policy of privatisation itself, but rather the alleged accounting habit of including the proceeds of privisation in ordinary revenue, despite the fact the government actually published both sets of figures. Lachrie (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded, she was eventually toppled by her own party stabbing her in the back. When her cabinet told her they would support her in the second ballot but they new she wouldnt win she called it 'Treachery with a smile on its face'. It was this that devestated her and made her resign, otherwise she would of continued until 1992. When were talking about bias i probably believe that 'overall Thatcher was good for the country' but it didnt change the fact that she made many mistakes (mostly towards the end of her Premiership when her party became agitated.) I repeat that Geoffrey Howe's resignation speech about 'the wickets' is a good one. One of the strange things is that what got her elected and re-elected twice ended up being her downfall, her strong will turned to stubborness. She had stood up to the NUM, the Argentinians etc but she should of seen that the 'Poll Tax' (Community Charge is its proper name) was one to make a u-turn on. Her greatest strength turned into her greatest weakness and the secret party negotiations to get rid of her were ultimately successful in that climate of discontent.Willski72 (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, academia was almost united against her, but I don't think she enjoyed enough popular support to call her a 'populist'. She essentially polarized the nation into those who were 100% behind her, and those who were 100% against. Of course, british politics has swung right, and towards thatcher's position in recent years, given that Blair, Brown and Cameron (Blair especially) all believe in Thatcherite economics. It's actually very hard to measure popularity of a figure under Britain's 'first-past-the-post' system, as a party can win parliment without having nationwide majority (iirc). Polls give no better measure, as many polling organizations are politically motivated, and are often less blatant about their bias than the newspapers. Still, I feel if the label's under contention, a more neutral term should be adopted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.210.26 (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no question Margaret Thatcher had a popular following and had a populist style of politics. After all, one of the most famous hostile Marxist critiques of Thatcherism, by Stuart Hall, and published in 1985 in the New Left Review (151), was entitled 'Authoritarian Populism'. In point of fact, considered in electoral terms, the Thatcher governments weren’t any more divisive than Major’s or Blair’s. If we were to give equal space to opposition views regardless of actual election results, readers might end up wondering how governments ever got elected in the first place, and critiques of the FPTP system don’t belong in this article. Opinion polls are still a much better guide to public sentiment than any private judgement, and it's election results that provide political legitimacy in a democratic system. We don't want to start rewriting history in order to bury democratic outcomes. Lachrie (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

However, perhaps a less biased pool for an opinion poll could be found than Telegraph readers? I personally think a poll should be omitted, as it lends a false legitimacy to a shaky claim. I have no doubt that most polls on this subject are conducted by newspapers amongst that newspaper's readership. Therefore, you could get wildly skewed reactions that are unrepresentative of the general population. For instance, Guardian readers would probably be less positive towards Thatcher, whereas Telegraph readers would be more. It's not re-writing history to insist on considered use of sources. Those sources that are demonstrably unreliable should be treated with suspicion.