Talk:Margaret Thatcher

The intention of Scargill

On the trade union section and the bit dealing with the miners strike it says ' NUM president Arthur Scargill made no secret of his intention to bring down the Thatcher government, as the miners had the Heath government in 1974.' That's a quote I'd like to verify, it seems strange, unfortunately the reference is to p.6 of the 'Globe and Mail', that well known Canadian newspaper and difficult to check. Such an incendiary quote must have been reported in a British newspaper, the reference is useless as supplying verification. I think its invented but if it isn't I'd like the chance to read where he made this intention clear. 92.10.180.241 (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Try not to be a conspiracy theorist, the same could be said for any user who adds a reference to a book. The globe and mail does have a website. Woody (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I can order a book , how the hell can I get to check a very dubious claim made on p.6 of a Toronto newspaper in the mid 1980s? If Scargill made no secret of his intention to bring the government down it would have been widely reported in the British press. He was fighting pit closures, if he'd really said what's claimed here it would have hurt his cause. He made no secret of his hatred for the government, so what, thats not the same thing and if a British newspaper reference can't be given let the people who have access to this Canadian source for the quote , give it in full. Who is the conspiracy theorist , me asking for a verifiable quote or people saying a Marxist led union sought to bring the Government down?Sayerslle (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The conspiracy theorist is someone who does not assume good faith in other users and presumes that they are intent on nefarious deeds. I have quoted from the Globe and Mail before, it is the Times for Canada; not the CIA or MI5 in disguise. I think you could find a lot of people or even quotes that say Scargill wanted to topple the Government. Take this from the Independent for example: "...any critics may well reply that if this had been his only aim during the 1984-85 miners' dispute, when more than twice as many pits and jobs were at stake, the industry would not be in its present sorry state. But Arthur Scargill, convinced Marxist, wanted to topple the government. He failed. Indeed, the defeat of the miners enabled Margaret Thatcher to claim an equivalent of the Falklands war triumph on the home front. He has failed in much else, too."

In terms of the exact quote, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Regards, Woody (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sure I could find a lot of people who say Arthur Scargill wanted to topple the government. So what? I want to marry Nicola Sanders, do I therefore intend to marry Nicola Sanders. Even if Scargill had been asked ' Do you want to see an end to Thatchers govt. ' and he said yes, that isn't the same thing as the propagandist tainted ' Scargill made no secret of his intention to topple the government. Anyway the burden of evidence is to give the quote from Scargill, I'd just like to see it. I admit I am a conspiracy theorist if it means not assuming good faith on the part of user:lachrie, I would assume myself born yesterday if I assumed good faith from that quarter. It is good to assume good faith, but it's important to keep ones wits too. Sayerslle (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Then reword it; something like "Scargill wanted to topple the Thatcher Government, much like the Heath Government was removed in 1974.<reference><reference><reference>" Woody (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I really cannot seem the problem with the current statement, Globe and Mail is a relaiable source, The Indy article further confirms it, and I'm sure I've read similar statements before elsewhere. As is said, the miners had done the same in 74 - there's no suggestion taht the toppling is by anything other than democratic means, make the government so unpopular that it loses the next election. David Underdown (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Indy article 'confirms' nothing. It's third hand comment. The fact that you're 'sure you read similar statements before elsewhere', ...well find them, with arthur scargill enunciating this intention to topple. If you don't see that 'intention' to 'topple' is politically tendentious you are more innocent than you have a right to be. The burden of evidence lies with the person who supplied this elusive quote from scargill about his intentions. It seems to me if Scargill had made such an intention clear during the strike it would have been a dumb own goal. Perhaps he did , but I want to see the words from his mouth at the time, and not ' An Indy article ' years later said such and such, or the globe and mail in canada had an article that said he intended such and such. Why doesnt the editor who supplied the reference just let us see the article? Sayerslle (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

He may have made it clear to those around him without it being reported at the time so it's only later that it would become common knowledge. You are the only one arguing that the current sourcing is insufficient, so the the article should remain in its original state until you have consensus for the removal of sorced information. As I say there is no indication that the toppling was to be anything other than democratic means, by exercising the fundamental rights to strike and to peaceful protest-in fact it seems to me that given his political convictions it would be more remarkable had he not waned to see the end of the Thatcher government. As to your complaint about me "threatening" you with the 3rr rule, and claiming that only Woody and I had reverted you, Lachrie also reverted your deletion of this material [1], and it is a requirement that it can be shown that anyone reported for a breach of 3rr has been warned of the existence of the rule. As for further sources, here is Kinnock on Scargill and the strike earlier this year,

He gave himself the credit for the success of the 1974 strike [which helped bring down the Heath government] but that was much exaggerated. He had the illusion that if the workers were united, they could destabilise, even overthrow a democratically elected government. That was the falsehood of Scargill's conclusion, and that is why I have always condemned him. The miners deserved something much better.

— http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/13/simon-hoggarts-sketch-neil-kinnock

The third reverter, Lachrie, is the user who included the dubious material so I concluded his was not a disinterested action. ' He may have made it clear to those around him without it being reported..' But the quote says 'He made no secret of his intention..'So was it a secret intention revealed to those close, or did he 'make no secret of his intention'.. Anyway he may have etc.. it won't do. ' There is no indication that the toppling was to be anything other than democratic means..' I think that's naïve ..There's actually no explanation of how he intended to effect this toppling, it's left very vague, and sinister sounding. In fact Scargill can not topple a government - it's a weird sentence really and that's why I deleted it..'As for further sources, heres Kinnock , speaking in 2009...' I think for the sake of decency the allegation that Scargill made no secret of his intention to topple the government it requires a quote from Scargill, a contemporary quote from Scargill from 84/85, not a quote from Kinnock in 2009. Again, how naïve are you being to think that Kinnock is a good source of trustworthy quotes about Arthur Scargill. Personally I wouldn't trust a word Kinnock said including the words, the and and, ... If Kinnock says Scargill thought he could overthrow the government, where are the quotes to support this, from the period, that's all I'm asking to read. Is it Lord Kinnock yet?, what a joke he was. Why can't we read this segment from the globe and mail and then it can be settled, can't it? The quote from Kinnock clearly says Scargill sought to overthrow a democratically elected govt. which you are suggesting as backup for material that gives ' no indication that the toppling was to be anything other than democratic means..' I don't deny he wanted to see an end to the Thatcher government, but you can't see any difference between saying that, and the sentence I dispute, and for that there's no help really. Don't you at least concede it would be good to see first hand quotes from Arthur ?Sayerslle (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

While in general I approve of the recent scrutiny of this article for neutrality issues, I'm having a hard time understanding why you didn't just change the word "intention" to "desire" here and consider it fixed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Why I didn't change it is because I haven't seen the source and if I change 'intention' to 'desire' and 'topple' which is an ideologically suggestive word, to ' see voted out of office' I'd be interfering with what the source said . I'm having a hard time understandiing why you think I should falsify quotes I haven't even seen. 'Intend' ' want' it's all the same - no it aint, this is alice in wonderland stuff , you might as well say, ' I see what I eat' is the same as , 'I eat what I see'. Where is the quote? If it says 'his intention to topple', am I entitled to change it to , ' his desire to see voted out of office.'?? Sayerslle (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Errr, calm down. The line in question is not a quote, so you wouldn't "falsifying" it by changing it. How good a paraphrasing that sentence is obviously requires access to the source, but I don't see that assuming that a source you haven't witnessed is a malicious representation is a better idea than assuming that whoever paraphrased said source for this article made an error in wording it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The article itself I'm assuming backed up its assertion that Scargill etc..This is tedious, yeh, put the sentence back then, -no-one has malicious intentions to misrepresent anything, I know that, no-one has any animus against Arthur Scargill, I know that, I know every editor who has contributed to the Thatcher article has tried their best to make it neutral. I will calm down, thanks. Thatcher did have to do something about the state of the country, I realise that, I'm sorry I've been wasting your time. Sayerslle (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not presented as a verbatim quote though, so I don't see too much problem in rewording slightly, looking again, the wording that was not in the article is not topple but "bring down". You are insisting on contemporary soruces, but since the strike happened in 1984 before the growth of the internet these are unsurprisingly difficult to find, and where a reference has been made to a contemporary newspaper you are objecting becuase you cannot easily read it yourself, if it's not online you are going to have to trust the original editor if he presents you with direct quotes from that article. I have been able to establish via The Times archive (subscription only I'm afraid) that Scargill gave an interview to the Morning Star which was published on 29 March in which unsurprisingly given that paper there was much talk about class struggle, so this seems the most likely place to find a direct expression on these sorts of views, but I've no idea how to track down a copy of this article, short of a trip to the British Library newspaper centre. The Kinnock article was part of a series in The Guardian abou the 25th anniversary of the strike, Scargill's own refelctions from that series are at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/07/arthur-scargill-miners-strike and if you search the website using the title of that article you will find all sorts of letters from people involved at the time. Since the disputed wording here makes clear reference to the earlier fall of the Heath government, commonly regarded a resultign from earlier miners' strikes I completely fail to see why there is this automatic presumption by you that to refer to Scargill intending to bring down the Thatcher government in the same manner is unclear or some sort of "dirty tricks" against Scargill. David Underdown (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a verbatim quote though, yeah, well , precisely.Sayerslle (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

thinking about it, and I have to go out to place a bet on the New York Mets, I think that would be a good solution , a verbatim quote from Scargill. 'And Scargill made no secret of his intention to bring down Thatcher too. As he said in the Morning Star of march 84 or whatever it is, ' And this struggle isn't just about pit closures, it will go on..I intend to bring down the Government too.' This would illustrate that Thatcher had a fight not only to close the mines but also to defend the whole democratic system. So , find the quote and then I think that would be better. I can't do this myself as I have no such verbatim quote. Sayerslle (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Or we cange tack, there's plenty of contemporary comment, and quotes such as those from Kinnock that demonstrate that the strike was widely perceived as being in part an attempt to use union power to bring down the government, following the precendent of 1974, taht way we're not tied to having to prove Scargill's precise intentions. David Underdown (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer that, because it wouldn't ascribe to Scargill certain intentions, that I don't think have been proved he had, but only say 'some perceived him as having wider intentions than fighting pit closures', which isn't really controversial I suppose. I still don't even see why it's so clear-cut that the miners got rid of Heath, I mean there were elections involved there too, but I admit I don't know the history at all of the Heath government and its demise. Sayerslle (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually looking through the contemporary Times further, I see that on 26 June 1984 they re-printed a 1975 interview originally given by Scargill to New Left Review explaining the tactics used in earlier strikes, and very much wrapped in the terminology of class war and a fight agaisnt the government. On 20 July 1984 Peter Walker in a leader for The Times quotes further from a 1981 Scargill interview in Marxism Today which again makes Scargill's position pretty clear, even allowing for Walker's obvious bias. You may find you have access to The Times archive via your local library, in which case you'll be able to find these article by seraching on "new left review", or it may be possible for me to send you the pdfs of the original articles. Yes these views actually predate the strike, but I can't find that he disavowed them at any time. David Underdown (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course if a government picks a fight with Scargills industry, seeks to destroy it, , he will fight back, that is unsurprising to me, again the fact that you can't see the difference between a determination to fight a government policy,or let's say 'fight the government', and an intention to bring down a government , I dont know, I suspect we come from such different political traditions that we are losing each other in translation..you quote the times in 84, ,heaping Pelion on Ossa, as they scrambled in back issues of new left review, engaged in a war to discredit Scargill....the piece in the article in any case clearly intends us to understand that during the strike Scargill made no secret of his intention to bring down the Government...if a contemporary quote can't be found, I find that sentence dishonourable, but in the end I'm sure the Thatcher lovers will write what they want armed with their worthless scraps from the express and mail and telegraph and times that prove she was right about everything .Sayerslle (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well its not going to be in the bloody Guardian is it, the sun shone out of Scargill's backside with the Guardian.Willski72 (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the sourcing is disputed, why hasn't a quote been provided as WP:V recommends? Giving a link to the website isn't particularly helpful since the online archive doesn't go back that far. I will have much more to say on this once this has been dealt with. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

So, how about that quote saying what the source actually says then please? Once we get the quote out of the way, other issues can be addressed. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

One week and counting for a quote from the source.....or, shall I assume, as you have done on other occasions I have documented ready for future use, that the source doesn't actually say what you added to the article? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well i've never read it and i dont know where it is, otherwise i would give it to you!--Willski72 (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Shocked

I have enjoyed browsing wikipedia for a few years now, and have found it generally enjoyable. However, I must admit I find this article shocking. Many other in/famous figures have sections devoted to their failures and crimes. I did not know that wikipedia is an extremist view, British controlled website(some mods anyway)

Anyway, the article is complete. Where does it say that she allowed a freely elected member of British parliment die of starvation? At the time there was an international outcry, and protests and negative media views were expressed in countries including: Australia, Russia, Norway, The United states of America, France, Italy and Cuba. Indeed, in some of these countries, protests were held over the incident.

Margret Tatcher started an Illegal war, colluded with terrorists and allowed people to die.

This is my opinion and some may disagree, but the fact is many people share my beliefs, so they should be ON HER PAGE.

Come on mods, have some sense and let the article be balanced, like the vast majority of other articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.125.60.154 (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As you acknowledge three lines up, that is all your opinion. It is your opinion that Thatcher is a criminal, your opinion that Thatcher allowed someone to starve, your opinion that Thatcher launched an illegal war.... Sorry bud, but your opinion doesn't hold any weight on Wikipedia. The opinions of the editors are irrelevant. Happyme22 (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If a leadership figure causes controversy then it is worthy of discussion. Ever heard of the phrase - the silence is deafening?

So, because in his third paragraph he includes his own opinion, you see fit to ignore his second paragraph which is factual (disclaimer, I'm not saying the list of countries is 100% correct, but there was substantial international criticism)? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sands made the explicit choice to starve himself to death (suicide), Thatcher didn't force nor enourage him to so; I don't see why it should be fawned over in this article? Under the governance of every elected leader, somebody somewhere decides that their life isn't worth living. Fact of life. Can't recall any "illegal" war during the Thatcher period. I recall a military dictatorship invading an island which doesn't belong to them, for populist appeal, then getting promptly turned around and booted back out by a country with superior military capabilities. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Except Bobby Sands' death wasn't suicide... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sands acted like a spolit child would to get attention. He knew full well that not consuming food would lead to him starving to death. He took this choice entirely under his own initiative; thus he commited suicide, he killed himself not Thatcher. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hook, line, sinker, rod and copy of Angling Times! You will find that neither Sands' death certificate or the coroner's verdict contain the word suicide (Philosophy, Vol. 59, No. 229 (Jul., 1984) by Terence M. O'Keeffe). As for the rest of your little rant that is of no relevance to improving this article, you might want to read the many books that deal with the hunger strike, in particular ones which deal with the Sands' assessment of the situation and his motivation from December 1980 onwards, then you may realise how wrong you are. Now have you quite finished using this talk page as a soapbox for your own incorrect views? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a podium for Marxian sociology and archaic libels on former Prime Ministers for their refusal to backdown to blackmail, either. Its an encyclopedia. The person solely responsible for the death of Sands, was himself, in an act of nihilism. There are WP:V sources which describe it as "suicide" - the only people who seem to think otherwise are fans and appeasing apologists.[2] If in a similar case Marxist-Leninist serial killer and member of terrorist organisation ETA; Iñaki de Juana Chaos had starved himself to death, as promised, it would have been suicide, no responsibility of the Spanish Prime Minister. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This is like shooting fish in a barrel. Sands' death cannot be reliably sourced as suicide, because it wasn't suicide. That's a fact, albeit one that most neanderthal British nationalists struggle to understand. His death certificate doesn't say suicide, neither does the coroner's verdict, and he wouldn't have received an ecclesiastical burial if his death was a suicide. That many rabid right wing British nationalists and their apologist propagandists consider his death to be a suicide can be sourced, but that does not change the fact that his death was not a suicide. Let me know when you've finished being pwned eh? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what rag waving "nationalism" has to do with anything? So far as I can see the only relation nationalism has to this discussion is the fact that Sands was a rabid exponent of that French Revolutionry ideology. Did you read the academic reference? According to you the world media are "British nationalists"? Basil Hume, a cardinal, was a "British nationalist"? People kill themselves all the time, starvation when you absolutely are able to eat if you wanted to, falls under the solid definition of suicide. As I pointed out before, Wikipedia isn't here to present a bias podium for Communism in Ireland and its lobby in GB (such as yourself). As for childish language like "pwned"-I never said I was for or against the Marxist trend of starving themselves—rather that it shouldn't be presented in articles as anything other than suicide (and presented a reference academic journal to back my position up, something you haven't done). - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess you either missed or purposefuly ignored the academic journal I referenced that deals with what Sands' death certificate says and what the verdict of the coroner was? Do you have difficulty understanding English? I could not care one iota what your academic source says, as all it says is the opinion of the writer and him reporting the opinion of others. What does an English priest have to do with an Irish Catholic? You seem oblivious to the fact Ireland has its own church. Not only that, but standards of morality and judgement on issues vary from place to place and culture to culture, but I wouldn't expect Anglocentric people to appreciate that. Do you understand the difference between fact and opinion, or is that something you have difficulty with too? The word "suicide" does not appear on his death certificate or the coroner's verdict, therefore it is a fact that his death was not a suicide. Your ignorant spouting off is only making you look very silly and is of no relevance to this article, so shoo before I find an admin who'll be willing to do the world a favour and reinstate your fully deserved ban. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a ludicrous ignorance of cause and effect. He starved himself for a reason, Thatcher was behind that reason. By the same strand you are arguing that a man that runs towards gunfire in a war is committing suicide - but some might say such a comment ignores context. oh dear, just like you did, oops.

"He starved himself for a reason, Thatcher was behind that reason", by the same strand you are arguing that if i didnt like your above comment i could starve myself to death and it would be your fault for posting that comment. It would only have been murder if she had purposefully taken away his food or reduced it to such low amounts that he could not possibly have survived, thats law. A mans whim to kill himself is suicide, its as clear cut as that.Willski72 (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As much as you all like to argue and debate the fact is this article is very one sided and pro-thatcher. Why is there only sections on how successful she was and not on how her harshness left Britain with a somewhat torn image? This woman basically inspired football hooliganism and she looked down on the working class of Britain as second class citizens with no real power. There should be no opinion in this article but its only fair to include how she created a terrible image for herself. As for the Bobby Sands situation i think we should just leave that out. It is far to complicated and it is almost a guarantee that it will turn into an edit war with opinions clearly shown. The article is too biased. You cannot simply pick and choose history, all details, good and bad, have to be included. User:Jamie Kelly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.169.111 (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hang on

Happyme , the article is still biased, I don't think you should remove the warning about its bias yet. Look at Thatcher as Education Secretary, can you tell me that paragraph isn't the least bit skewed in the womans favour? The way its phrased and stuff? Take a look at the way its written. Sayerslle (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Also the Legacy section is egregiously rubbish, Theres a lot of POV stuff there, who is Claire Berlinski - ? She's just a Thatcher apologist isn't she ?,she's quoted here as if she is a respected voice.. The quote Thatcher declared 'I regret nothing' and insisted 'she was right..' how can that quote be accurate, wouldn't she have said 'I was right..' Its just sloppy, POV quotes, misquoted quotes, dubious cites from right wing apologists, it discredits the article.Sayerslle (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm honestly a bit tired of all this. Many editors are using this "POV" as an excuse to overhaul the article and attempt fill it with left wing propaganda, degrading Thatcher and throwing the balance in the opposite direction. What we strive for is neutrality, not a shift to one side. What you said above is very telling: "She's quoted here as if she is a respected voice" -- Just because you don't respect her doesn't mean that millions of Britons, Americans, and people elsewhere across the globe share your view that she is universally unpopular and not credible.

I'll admit that the article needed work. But the bulk of what had to be done is now over, and the article is 100% more balanced. You continue to make these broad statements on what you want the article to look like, totally disregarding all the work that went into it by myself and other editors before you even showed up here. Can you see why I am a bit upset?

I think you are confused as to the editing process as well. One does not state what they want to be done at the talk page then immediately go to the article and do it. If said person's edits are objected to, 1.) they must be proposed at the article talk page by the person who wants them implemented; 2.) discussed at the article talk page by a range of editors; and 3.) the consensus will decide what goes in, if anything from the original proposal. Simply because you want something added doesn't mean it is going to go in, period.

In addition, in regard to the lead of the article, did you gain consensus to add that Thatcher perceived the country to be in a national decline? That is worded very weasely, implying that it was only Thatcher's perception, as many editors above have brought forth cites from credible sources which state that the UK's economy was in a decline. The sentence stood as it was for a very long time and simply because you feel that the economy was on the up and up doesn't mean that we have to discredit those sources to be "NPOV" and "include both sides". If one side is far outmatched by the other, we can disregard the other. Think of it this way: there are a few people in the world that believe the earth to be flat, but science and years of research and photographs tell us otherwise. We are not going to say in the lead of the article on the Earth that "Some people consider the earth to be flat", because that is what is known as a fringe theory. The same principle applies here. Happyme22 (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The subject of the article is Thatcher, so her perception of the depth of the crisis at the end of the 70s isn't irrelevant, if you could be bothered to read half a page of her foreword to the Manifesto you'd see how worried she was that if the country didn't elect her - she uses the phrase 'perhaps the last chance' to save the nation . Is the Legacy section perfect then?, even that sloppy quote that can't be right, is the legacy section free from special pleading? ..Your bias is terrifying..you talk like you're the presiding genius of the article, youre just an editor, 'I plan on going back thru the articles history and discussions and closely analyzing your edits' you wrote here, sounding like Joe McCarthy, ..My edits to the main article have been very few and minor. What's nonsense, and what I'm frankly tired of, is your delusion that you are capable of neutrality. I don't despise Claire Berlinski I'd never heard of her, so I wondered who she was and looked her up and she's written abook apparently called 'Why Thatcher Matters' or something like that, so any quote from her should be prefaced, with 'As the conservative apologist Berlinski argues.., not just trying to smuggle her opinion in as if its a mainstream view. You arbitrarily removed the neutrality tag not me, you decided the discussion was over arbitrarily, do you understand the editing process?Sayerslle (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that her perception of the 1970s decline of the economy of the United Kingdom is relevant, but the wording needs to be improved. I think you missed my point about the weasel words. As it is currently worded, "She entered 10 Downing Street determined to reverse what she perceived as a precipitate national decline," one must wonder if there truly was a national decline or whether Thatcher exploited this, or whether Thatcher was mistaken, etc. Of course there was a downturn, of course the economy was bad, as established by mulitple sources presented in the discussions above. You know that as well as I do. Thus we need to write the article as so, saying something like, "She entered 10 Downing Street determined to reverse the UK's national economic decline." You said that we need to show her views and thoughts on the matter; well, they are already presented in the sentence above with the Manifesto quote. I'm fine with the quote from the Manifesto. You convinced me on that. But I'm not fine with the sentence that follows it.

Who decides what is mainstream and what isn't? Are left wingers mainstream and conservatives cooks? That is what you are making it out to be. Labeling an author as an "apologist" simply because she wrote a book emphasizing the importance of Thatcher's 11 and a half years as PM is flat out craziness and is the farthest thing from NPOV. I will continue to oppose such proposals. I don't see much wrong with the legacy section. Take the following paragraph:

To her supporters, Margaret Thatcher remains a revolutionary figure who revitalised Britain's economy, impacted the trade unions, and re-established the nation as a world power.[199] They contend she contributed greatly to the end of the Cold War and the fall of communism.[199] But Thatcher was also a controversial figure, in that her premiership was also marked by high unemployment and social unrest,[199] and many critics fault her economic policies for the unemployment level.[200] Speaking in Scotland in April 2009, before the 30th anniversary of her election as prime minister, Thatcher declared: "I regret nothing," and insisted that she was "right to introduce the poll tax and to close loss-making industries to end the country's 'dependency culture'."[201]

What is wrong with that? Both sides are given due weight, supporters and opponents. How about the following paragraph from the section:

After her resignation in 1990, a MORI poll found that 52% of Britons agreed that "On balance she had been good for the country", while 48% disagreed.[204] In April 2008, the Daily Telegraph commissioned a YouGov poll asking whom Britons regarded as the greatest post-World War II prime minister; Thatcher came in first, receiving 34% of the vote, while Winston Churchill ranked second with 15%.[205][206][207]

Those are the facts. There is nothing you can do to change them. I don't see any problems.

Your claims that I am clueless when it comes to neutrality are baffling and laughable. I've worked on articles of some of the most important figures of the 20th century, including Ronald Reagan, Nancy Reagan, Pat Nixon, Richard Nixon, George W. Bush, Laura Bush, Dick Cheney, and the ever important Iran-Contra affair. The first three I listed are featured articles, and the rest are good articles. So please don't insult me and claim that I am mindless about Wikipedia policy when I in fact know quite a bit, enough to be nominated and confirmed as a Wikipedia administrator.

The discussion had been moot for roughly a week. We didn't hear a peep out of you or me or hardly anything from other editors about POV issues. Thus I removed the tag, and the minute I did you jumped on it, reinserting it and demanding that more changes be made. So many beneficial changes have been made to the article over the last month, so many important changes showing different sides of the Thatcher years. I don't see anything wrong with the legacy section, I see the introductory quote as a perfectly acceptable summarization of Thatcher's economic policy and basic beliefs. Period. Happyme22 (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I just think there's no hurry to remove the tag, there are still problems of bias I feel, it kind of takes her being for freedom, less state control etc..too much at her own evaluation, theres no mention of class much really..if no-one comments on the talk page for a week or two that doesn't mean everythings sorted, thats my opinion anyhow. One bizarre sentence that isn't important but is just bonkers I think is this in the bit when she was education secretary "she gave priority to academic needs in schools..' and then theres a reference for that.Is that to help the people who might have thought her priority was to see the school discos were well run ? what is the point of a sentence like that? isn't it 'subject, the bleedin obvious'.? All the important figures you've worked on dont cover a very wide political spectrum do they? kind of cover the political alphabet from a to b. And like they say we start to resemble our pets maybe youve started unconsciously to take on the politics of your pet subjects. Or you chose people you have an affinity with/ Nixon, Bush, Thatcher, Nancy, Cheney, blimey...Everyone has bias, thats whats good about wikipedia that many voices contend, have their say and move onSayerslle (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The tag should not have been removed under any circumstances, as the dispute has not been resolved in any way. If Happyme22 is so keen to resolve the dispute, then how about actually making the article more neutral? Where are all these mythical improvements that have made the article more neutral? There's the list of examples from one month ago, what has been done? Northern Ireland section - nothing done. Falklands section - nothing done. 1983 election section - nothing done. Trade unions section - expansion of miner's strike information, but now contains vague facts, misrepresentation of source material, and I still don't consider the information to be a neutral overview of the strike in general, more one designed to push a particular violent slant on the events. Cold War section - little done, crucial reaction to the Libya bombing is still being omitted, the addition of a mere opinion poll doesn't tell the story at all. Resignation section - nothing done. Lead and legacy sections - nothing done. So what's the plan here, fob complaints off, do nothing, then remove the tag and think the problem has gone away? Not likely! I've been extremely generous in not taking this to GAR to date, but since you obviously don't intend to fix the problems with this article it's more than past time this embarrassment of an article was delisted so I'll write up its death warrant later. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree it should not be removed until the NPOV and OWN issues are sorted out.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Happyme i suggest you just let them do whatever they want with it, then when they've finished see what they've got and change back anything thats biased the other way. I know it will make you mad but you're going to get worn down anyway, at least this way if they make a total mess of it (which im sure they wont) you get to gloat at them. It saves lots of argument and hassle on both sides.--Willski72 (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is to try and make the article more credible not to make it left-wing biased instead of right wing biased . I agree that 'the sourcing in the article is sub-par' 'brief BBC reports CNN profiles' etc..,I think there are too many opinion polls too.. Michael White wrote that as of Feb 2009 more than 150 books have been written about Thatcher and her years in power. Sayerslle (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Time to point out the elephant in the room

Well it seems like an elephant to me, but nobody else seems to have noticed it. Apparently Lachrie's edits are "truly spectacular" according to Happyme22. Admittedly the edit I really want to point out most of all falls outside the "last month" window, but bears closer examination.

Down to business: Sayerslle points out that a quote attributed to Thatcher reading "she was right" cannot possibly be right. Happyme22, with his blinkers on ignores that rather valid point and goes off on a rant. Not satisifed with having his "this article must be neutral, it's a good article" argument discredited, he's now waving his admin badge and a list of articles improved as evidence that this article is neutral. It isn't, deal with it. Admins have no special status in content disputes they are involved in, and whatever work you've done on other articles is of no relevance to whether this article is neutral or not. But back to Sayerslle's point, how can that quote possibly be accurate? It can't be, so rather than ignore the point and rant away on irrelevant tangets let's do some digging shall we?

The following sentence was added in this edit by Lachrie:

Speaking in Scotland in April 2009, before the 30th anniversary of her election as prime minister, Thatcher declared: 'I regret nothing,' and insisted 'she was right to introduce the poll tax and to close loss-making industries to end the country's "dependency culture"

According to the cite ("Thatcher: I did right by Scots; Thatcher: I regret nothing" Sunday Times (26 April 2009), p. 1") there may be two stories that source this but I'm not buying that. Why would the Sunday Times have two stories in the same edition covering the exact same thing, when Thatcher isn't exactly two story material these days? This is backed up by the Times website, where only the first story appears, and I can find no trace of another story with the "regret nothing" quote. So given the unlikelihood of two virtually identical stories on Thatcher appearing in the same edition and only one story appearing on the site, it's reasonable to accept that there's only one story you'll agree? Now let's examine the problems with the sentence added when compared to the source:

• The source is ambiguous as to whether Thatcher was actually speaking in Scotland. By my reading of the story (particularly if you read it in full), she's "defending her record in Scotland", not "in Scotland defending her record".
• The quote "I regret nothing" that has been attributed to Thatcher appears nowhere in the source.
• The quote "she was right to introduce the poll tax and to close loss-making industries to end the country’s “dependency culture”" that has been attributed to Thatcher is actually the words of the Times. Had it been "in the words of the Sunday Times she declared etc etc" it would work, but as it is it doesn't. The words "Thatcher declared" followed by two quotes says to the reader that those were Thatcher's exact words, when they don't seem to be.
• The alleged quotes are being used out of context. The quotes are specific to her policies in Scotland, yet this article does not make this in any way clear, and implies she's talking about the whole country.
• As seems usual for this article, sources are being used rather selectively. The source is being used only for Thatcher giving her version of events, while ignoring any negative information in the same source. The source notes that the poll tax contributed to the collapse of the Tory party in Scotland, yet we only have Thatcher's assertion that she was right and anything negative is left out?! Same with the "thousands of job losses and the decline of many communities" that the source mentions. The source also notes she is a hate figure in Scotland, so in addition to republicans in Ireland (Richard English - Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA, pp. 207–208, ISBN 0-330-49388-4), coal mining communities (New Statesmen article in a now archived section) she's also a hate figure in Scotland, she seems to be hated by a significant number of people according to reliable sources yet this material is absent from the article? And to summarise in relation to this specific edit: as this cited source covers her negative track record with regards to Scotland then gives Thatcher right of reply by including her version of events, then it's an egregious breach of NPOV to ignore the negative track record and only include alleged quotes from Thatcher about how great she is!

In addition to that there's the claim that David Jones died from being crushed by a lorry. Not only is that claim not in the source cited, but it's a poorly researched addition considering his cause of death varies from source to source and is actually disputed. Then there was the "Marxist leadership" claim attached to a quote that wasn't present in the source, which has since been removed. Then there's Scargill's intentions that he made no secret of, and things went strangely quiet when a quote from the source was asked for didn't they? If you're reading as I'm sure you are, how about actually providing the quote? I could go through more edits and find many similar problems, considering his posturing on this talk page I view his editing as a joke! "Lazy editorialising is the bane of Wikipedia" says Lachrie. Was your editing lazy, or is your editing in violation of policy deliberate? If there's anyone that this (since removed) comment of "closely analyzing your edits" applies to, then it's Lachrie! Or is Happyme22 unwilling to closely scrutinise the work of editors on his side in a content dispute? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That sentence should be changed by Lachrie to make it clear that those aren't direct quotes from Thatcher, he probably liked the memorable, Edith Piaf-esque defiance that the 'regrette rien' gave to his heroine's , invented, words. Where is that quote from the Toronto paper? I don't believe Happyme is even-handed in his scrutinising. Sayerslle (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

Where is it. Maggie attracted some of the harshest and most pronlonged criticism of any politician in modern times - yet this read reads like a hagiography.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hatchet job sections go against NPOV policy. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You obviously believe in Saint Margaret, Yorkshirian - it must be wonderful - next life I'm coming back as a conservative. Paul Austin (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the point is that Wikipedia guidelines and good writing practices dictate that separate criticism sections shouldn't be in articles. The neutral thing to do is to to integrate into the text. Having a separate criticism section would just be overwhelming and would just turn into a cesspit. Regards, Woody (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

We need a list of prominent politicians in recent history etc and we need to see how many of them have criticism sections. For example: George Bush, Tony Blair, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, Edward Heath, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton (for a bit of variety!), Clement Attlee, Harold Macmillan....... Anymore?--Willski72 (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

So far George W Bush doesnt have one and Tony Blair has a short one part way through the article.--Willski72 (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither Harold Wilson or James Callaghan or Edward Heath or Ronald Reagan have one.--Willski72 (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

And none of the last three do either.--Willski72 (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

please check the birth year of the husband of margaret thatcher..it should be 1915 and not 1951..

i know it is only a typo, but wanted to bring to your notice.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K c arikatla (talk • contribs) 11:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, however 1951 is correct in the instance in which you are referring to, because the date is the date of marraige, not the date of birth. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher and the end of the Cold War

Given articles such as this, this and this about her feelings regarding the reunification of Germany and loss of Soviet control over Eastern Europe, should we add this info and possibly revise the description of her role in the end of the Cold War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.218.83 (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This article currently says that one of Thatcher's legacies is to end the cold war. However, that contradicts news reports (see Google news search) that say she opposed unification of Germany, and opposed changing Eastern Europe's borders, opposed the the break down of the Warsaw Pact, and did not want to 'decommunise' the USSR.--Lester 16:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

other intresting article bbc:Thatcher's fight against German unity