Talk:Margaret Thatcher

GA review

Why come Margaret Thatcher in 1987 anyway? Is it or not?

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)

References

Foreign policy not covered in main article

Under foreign relations, there definitely should be some reference to her dealings with Suharto, perhaps someone with better knowledge could attempt this? [1]

Also, maybe a mention of the Al-Yamamah deal? [2][3] Hillbillyholiday81 (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

These are two very good and salient suggestions. I apologise for missing them at the time. Perhaps after the fuss has died down about her death we could look at mentioning Suharto and the Al-Yamamah arms deal. --John (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Does each sentence need a citation?

My understanding is that every sentence with some fact in it needs a citation. Is this true? Does the sentence "After seeing the Queen, calling other world leaders, and making one final Commons speech, she left Downing Street in tears." need a footnote? It seems to me to be controversial enough to require a citation attached to that sentence and so I put a CN tag on that sentence. Subsequently I received a message on my User Page -- User talk:Bruce Hall#Please be more careful -- that I was in error to put a CN tag on it. Was I? --Bruce Hall (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right but the cite may not always be at the end of the sentence but could be further on at the end of the paragraph. Keith D (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Citation overkill Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 12:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Full title of Baroness Thatcher

Just a genaral point on the introductory section. Her title, after accepting a peerage, is Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven in the County of Lincolnshire (as noted elsewhere in the article) - so shouldn't this be stated in the introduction? Zebranation (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently it isn't, it's The Rt Hon. the Baroness Thatcher LG OM.[4] See Lord Ahmed[5] (who isn't Lord Ahmed of Rotherham) and also Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon[6] (presumably they either get to choose how they want the title to display or, more likely, it's decided for them to avoid confusion with similar names, i.e. Lord Ahmed was raised before Lord Ahmad so didn't need any clarification). Bromley86 (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's not have a "tributes" section.

I whole-heartedly agree with whoever wrote: <!-- Please do not add tributes from around the world. It is unnecessary and clutters the article. -->

These sections with condolences and little flags repel me. We should not have one. --John (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Malleus Fatuorum 13:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree 100%, I agree 0%. Those first reactions are important. --Borvo (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

They're non-encyclopaedic and you'll note not used on other pages. Wikipedia is not a memorial, it's an encyclopaedia. Canterbury Tail talk 13:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. For example, Ronald Reagan, her contemporary, or Pinochet her hero Basket _Feudalist 14:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

They may be important in a newspaper story, or a breaking news TV report, but Wikipedia is neither. There will be no tributes section. Malleus Fatuorum 14:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but with a small caveat. Obviously the soundbites from talking heads aren't notable and I honestly don't know why people add that kind of fluff to articles. But there may be one or two quotes that emerge over the next few days that might be useful in illustrating how she was viewed during her time in office and at the time of her death. Though having said that, any particularly significant quotes will likely appear in the slew of books that I'm sure publishers are ordering as I type. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Surely the reaction of other world leaders - especially those diametrically opposed to her politics (such as US President Obama and UK Labour party leader Milliband) - are relevant to how she was perceived? BealBocht (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Such immediate reactions are of little, if any, lasting value. So the answer is no, they're not. But you've clearly commented here without taking the trouble to actually read the article, as Milliband's reaction is already covered. Malleus Fatuorum 15:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you both mean Miliband (and he's not a world leader). I agree with Malleus and any quotations of lasting relevance will likely come from proper eulogies rather than kneejerk soundbites Jebus989^✰ 16:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Reactions aren't worthwhile mentioning. Everyone will express their sympathy, some will reminisce about her and the good old empire, etc. Responses that might lead to something, that's different, but it's hard to see how a reaction to this person's death will change anything in the real world. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's very simple, really: The statements on the occasion of her demise, will fit marvelously into the "quotes about her" part of the wikiquote site's article concerning her. Hence, the only parts I would include in the article, would be a small part about her funeral (which is yet to come as I write this), and, if it should happen, any special happening surrounding her demise (such as a major memorial- or good-riddance- party...). (Personally, I would attend the memorial version, but unless and until any of those parties occur, I see reason only to include something on her (currently future) funeral...) 195.204.138.41 (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I concur. Tributes and reactions make fine news and help fill up column inches, but they seldom are encyclopedic. As with any public figure, they are filled with platitudes and pitchforks, neither of which is worth mentioning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with what John, MF and others have said. It's just a bad idea. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

reads like conservative party propaganda

this article is biased and reads like it was written by a tory apparatchik. especially the criticism section where it reads as if all the problems she created with her policies were the fault of the previous government/s (same tory propaganda is in full swing again today) from the way this article presents the facts thatcher was barely controversial in any way and only did beneficial things to the UK. which is 100% opposite to the prevailing wisdom of sociologist who study britain. the article is lacking in facts and has a large dose of misinformation in it. 188.220.151.59 (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

<humor>The tories should participate as toros in a corrida.</humor> Advice: edit Thatcher and bring it into a neutral form. --Borvo (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is biased, and looks like it was written by a member of the far left who hasn't even read the article. Malleus Fatuorum 14:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Having actually read the article, specifically the section, "Political Legacy," I have to agree somewhat with the sentiment shared by the OP. I believe this article is NOT neutral and should be flagged as such. It glosses over the decline of union membership and unions that was caused by Thatcher's policies, and the entire article fails to mention Section 28, the anti-gay policy that had the effect of turning homosexuality into a taboo topic in schools and other government facilities. I'm certain that there are more deficiencies I have not yet found, but my non-union job only allows me a 30-minute break for lunch and I have yet to eat the one piece of fruit that I can afford working on minimum wage. Jbaumeister (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Then you believe incorrectly. That it does not reflect your own personal views is neither here nor there. Malleus Fatuorum 16:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but simply because you detest leftists doesn't mean they're wrong. Please come up with a better response than "because I said so." Possibly by examining the article honestly with regards to the criticisms mentioned, which you couldn't possibly have done in the two minutes between my post's timestamp and your response. Jbaumeister (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Where do get the idea from that I "detest leftists"? Try to bear in mind that I have a very good idea of what the article says as I wrote a good part of it and have read it many times. Unlike you, who only come here with your prejudices. Malleus Fatuorum 01:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the personal quarreling here, I concur that the "Political legacy" section is highly biased, especially the paragraph about unemployent being "a legacy of mismanagement from the previous government". The sentence is sourced twice, once with a non-consultable work, and once with a Guardian article in which I could find no trace of any argument in favour of high unemployent being attributed to the previous cabinet. I suggest that this particular passage be either sourced correctly written out. Manutaust (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree this wasn't supported by the source. It wasn't there at GA. I removed it. --John (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The political legacy section is clearly biased. For example it states "Margaret Thatcher revitalised Britain's economy, curbed the trade unions, and re-established the nation as a world power." All based on a source consisting of a list of people's opinions whilst saying that "many critics on the Left of the political spectrum fault her economic policies for the unemployment level" Surely an NPOV would treat both these assertions equally rather than one as fact and the other as opinion. Simon90 (talk) 08:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thatcher's Views of Human Sexuality

Lady Thatcher has a rather remarkable history when it comes to human sexuality and I believe this should be noted. Not only did she publicly acknowledge that homosexuality ought to be decriminalized, she was one of the earliest Conservatives to do so. Yet her views are unclear and require further research as regards to Section 28, which could either have been a concept she embraced or a compromise she grudgingly accepted. Not being a particularly ardent student of her biography, I would be completely unable to tell how she viewed this topic. Given its relevance to the times in which she lived and its importance in illustrating the depth and complexity of her character, I feel that the article is lacking by the omission of this topic.

Furthermore, in a time when President Reagan was studiously ignoring or avoiding the topic of the HIV/AIDS crisis, Lady Thatcher supported definitive and humane steps to stem the spread of the disease. This also speaks to who she was as a person and as a politician, because these were not easy positions to take within the cultural and political contexts of the 1980s. Jbaumeister (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting enough, do you have any sources handy? I'm not sure of the chronology, but if she was one of the first world leaders to address HIV/AIDS, it may be worth mentioning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• • I have a multitude of anecdotals (which of course are useless here) from HIV+ gay men I know who have survived the plague to this point. I also believe I read it somewhere recently, but I'm not sure where. Possibly Cleve Jone's book, or a news article. I was sort of hoping someone else might have been more knowledgeable of the sources, but let me do some research and bring solid info back in a day or so. Jbaumeister (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Now, boys and girls, if you really want tributes...

...these are from the Guardian online. Yes, very disappointing for the faithful who will be unable to delete my additions in that mildly condescending and naturally arrogant dismissal of a newspaper that ironically always boasted about having helped put her where she was :p as the Guardian is perceived to conform to WP:RS... here ya go. PS: Think Galloway might win the prize for tactful tweet of the hour Of course, they're not all 'world-leaders' (ironically, very few today actually knew or worked with her), but they are well-known and easilly verifiable...

Peter Tatchell-'Margaret Thatcher was an extraordinary woman but she was extraordinary for mostly the wrong reasons.'

Ken Loach- 'Margaret Thatcher was the most divisive and destructive Prime Minister of modern times. Mass Unemployment, factory closures, communities destroyed – this is her legacy. She was a fighter and her enemy was the British working class'
Gerry Adams -'Margaret Thatcher did great hurt to the Irish and British people during her time as British prime minister. Working class communities were devastated in Britain because of her policies.'
George Galloway- 'Tramp the dirt down' & 'Thatcher described Nelson Mandela as a "terrorist". I was there. I saw her lips move. May she burn in the hellfires.'

Ken Livingstone- 'She created today's housing crisis. She created the banking crisis. And she created the benefits crisis. It was her government that started putting people on incapacity benefit rather than register them as unemployed because the Britain she inherited was broadly full employment. She decided when she wrote off our manufacturing industry that she could live with two or three million unemployed, and the benefits bill, the legacy of that, we are struggling with today. In actual fact, every real problem we face today is the legacy of the fact that she was fundamentally wrong'

And in case anyone thinks that's too one-sided....? A very supportive one from Robert Mugabe, of course- !!!
Basket _Feudalist 17:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Take it to Slugger O'Toole and An Poblacht; the scum quoted above stand on their own demerits. Everyone knows it is mostly the "Afro-Caribbean" criminal/thugs/gaolbirds and Irish fifth columnists "celebrating" Thatcher's death. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist just as are Mugabe and his thugs today, as were George Washington, Patrick Henry, Ethan Allen, Michael Collins, the Stern Gang and the Irgun, and many others were, with their reputations burnished much later by posterity. Quis separabit? 22:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it was the ANC that were a terrorist organisation, not that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. Galloway must be making an honest mistake. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be pretty hard to consider the ANC a terrorist organisation and not consider Nelson Mandela a terrorist, wouldn't it? Formerip (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

NO. For better or for worse Mandela refused to condemn the violence of the ANC. That Mugabe is 1000 times worse is beside the point. Some ignorant people mistake Mandela for (or disingenuously compare him to) Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who genuinely opposed violence and was a true pacifist. I respect Mandela but the truth is the truth. Quis separabit? 14:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

celebrations of her death in the UK: Widely reported. Highly unusual. Why aren't they even mentioned?

As can be seen, https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=uk&tbm=nws&q=thatcher+celebration&oq=thatcher+celebration&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i53.13511.19613.0.19779.20.4.0.16.16.0.119.351.3j1.4.0...0.0...1ac.1.D8AtSNMIcpg#hl=en&safe=off&gl=uk&tbm=nws&sclient=psy-ab&q=thatcher+celebration+dead&oq=thatcher+celebration+dead&gs_l=serp.3...23000.24453.1.25259.5.5.0.0.0.0.121.531.2j3.5.0...0.0...1c.1.8.psy-ab.BqVOLf2AkMY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44770516,d.d2k&fp=e7cea0d1593531a2&biw=1440&bih=737 a lot of newspapers and other reliable news sources are covering the outpourings of jubilation at Thatcher's death. Few major British news sources are not covering this.

I cannot see how it isn't a straight violation of POV not to mention them. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Not all garbage printed in the rag trade require coverage. Quis separabit? 20:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

What you can't see is that what is covered by news reports isn't the same as what ought to be covered by an encyclopedia article. Malleus Fatuorum 18:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Some idiot attempting to organise a party on Facebook is not the sort of thing an encyclopaedia needs to be covering. We're not a news service. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Froth like this is for Facebook. Maybe Wikinews would cover it. Unless it will be important in 10 years time we shouldn't mention it. --John (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Northern mining towns aren't as sad, per this. There was quite a decent news segment earlier on the BBC with one ex-miner saying people will be opening the champagne tonight. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm waiting on a response from The Style Council. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Years active - 1983-1989. Ooooh, Maggie wouldn't like that. Eighties! We're living in the eighties... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If these threats of street parties and so on actually come to anything then of course we ought to cover it, but have they? Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This nonsense reduces Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. Publish this garbage in An Poblacht. Quis separabit? 20:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

They have: [7]. Funny, nothing about any celebrations...--Auric talk 20:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC) ::Give it time, Auric, there will be. Quis separabit? 22:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"one ex-miner saying people will be opening the champagne tonight.". There is a delightful irony there somewhere. Leaky Caldron 20:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I know many people who have said they will be celebrating her death prior to today. It will probably deserve a mention at some point once multiple reliable sources report it. I suspect someone will start Funeral of Margaret Thatcher at some point, and it should go there.Martin451 (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If any of it looks like it's going to be of lasting significance, it will be covered, but most reactions (pro or con) to a death don't have any lasting significance. At present, somebody trying to organise a party on Facebook is no more noteworthy than some talking head saying "she was the greatest thing since sliced bread". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur with MF, John and others have said. It's not worth mentioning. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I do not concur. Generally, when a famous person dies, we see an outpouring of praise, or at very least neutral comments, regardless of how that person was regarded when alive. Notable exceptions include Hitler and Ted Bundy -- but Margaret Thatcher was not a sadistic sociopath or anything remotely similar. The fact that celebrations are erupting is highly unusual, and therefore notable. I do agree, however, that we should wait for any lasting significance, and even then probably a single sentence will suffice. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well that raises an nteresting point: have any celebration occurred? I haven't been following this fir the last few hours, but last I heard was that some bloke in Glasgow was trying to organise a street party and Ken Livingstone and George Galloway (not exactly politicians with unblemished records and both known for leaning to the left) were using it as an opportunity to take a pop at the Tories. (And I'm all for having a pop at the Tories, just not in an encyclopaedia). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The death of Thatcher and the controversies surrounding it are going to be a significant fact of historical record. The fact that some mourned while others celebrated her death owing to her achievements and less palatable actsa in Government is a highly notable issue epitomising views on her premiership. Crimsone (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There isn't any controversy about her death. She was old. She was ill. She died. Leaky Caldron 21:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody said there was controversy ABOUT her death - but there is controversy surrounding it. The papers are full of it... the Telegraph complaining of abusive comments about her, the Guardian pointing out that "don't speak ill of the dead" doesn't apply here... the controversy is ABOUT how people are reacting to her death. Crimsone (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The papers are full of it because they have to write something to appear to have something to say—it's the same with any important story when there's not much to say beyond "she's dead". So they look for something to fill their columns; that it's utter drivel is of little concern. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well street parties have made the main stream press.[8]--Salix (talk): 22:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Very sad to see how low the British have fallen. Too far I suspect to get up with their dignity intact, if at all. Quis separabit? 22:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, but how many tens (hundreds?) of thousands of news articles have been written about Margaret Thatcher? Do they all get included in this article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The last time British citizens have spotaneously gathered in the streets to celebrate someone's death wasn't, say, Bin Laden, or Colonel Gadaffi, or Saddam Hussein - let alone their own PM, Harold Wilson, or Ted Heath, say. It was Hitler. But apparently this event isn't significant - that tells you something about how the views of the British people are deemed to not matter compared to comments by the leaders of the world. Ever heard of democracy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.208.88 (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's insignificant as far as wikipedia goes. I should also say statements by David Cameron and Ed Milliband are also not significant and should be removed. Some kind of assessment of her polarizing nature may be warranted, but only in the Legacy section where that is already touched on. Hzh (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of death sections isn't to eulogise. It's as clear as it was predictable that there have been diverse reactions to this happy event, and the article should reflect that. Soberly. It certainly shouldn't call it a "happy event", for example. But its a distortion of reality as it is. Formerip (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The criticism of Thatcher, and celebrations of her death have only been getting more coverage, and more detail.

After an 800-strong party in Glasgow in celebration of her death], and another in Brixton, amongst others, and even some MPs speaking out in celebration of her death. ([9]). This is is not normal, but all criticism of her is being systematically removed. The miners hated her, and still hate her. [10], [11]. They had a say in the section on her death for a while, but even that got removed.

I don't see how bland quotes from Cameron, the Queen, and Milliband, standing alone, can be considered NPOV. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• She isn't at room temperature yet and you are focused on creating a laundry list of negative responses. Once anything of any significance is said, enough to be quoted more than once or twice, then it could be considered. We aren't the news or a blog, we are an encyclopedia. It is ok if we don't publish a quote within 20 minutes of it being said. If you need your information fresher, turn on the television. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• It doesn't help your case when you exaggerate the number (250 is the number in the news report, not 800). Hzh (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Knew I should've double-checkedfont face="Georgia">[[User:You Can Act Like A Man|. I was juggling sources at the time, and thought I remembered. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

What is this madness about the Thatcher "street parties" not being relevant? They are being covered in the national press. Hundreds of people turned out to them. They are, like it or not, very much a significant event and there is no more appropriate place to right about them than in Margaret Thatcher's Wikipedia article - where we are supposed to be impartial and accurate, not somehow obliged to be "tasteful" and censor events. Zcbeaton (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• And they may be in time, but the first morning edition hasn't even come out and our duty is to summarize facts after they happen, not provide live coverage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd agree with that if it weren't for the fact that these events have already occurred, and they have already been covered. It has been hours since national newspapers like The Herald published their pieces on the street celebrations. Why must we wait for the same articles to appear in a newspaper before we can write about them - especially when it'll be the web coverage we'll be citing? Zcbeaton (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't put everything in its article, it can't say Falkland Islanders mourn her death (and there are news articles on that) just as much as it can't say some people celebrate it. Nothing about being "tasteful", a simple matter of judging whether something is significant enough to put in there. (And as I said, statements by David Cameron or Ed Milliband, or indeed the Queen, aren't really significant and should be removed too.) Hzh (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia can't put everything in its article. However, I suggest that this is significant enough to warrant at least a sentence! I think the comparison to the Falklanders is disingenuous, as is the comparison to simple politicians' reactions; these were actual "events" that followed her death, which were unusual and widely reported in the British media. I don't think a single sentence along these lines would be undue:

In the immediate aftermath of her death, there were efforts through social media to organise street parties in celebration. These took place in Glasgow's George Square and Brixton, despite opposition from local authorities.

- Zcbeaton (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Actual events, yes, but minor events in the greater scheme of thing. Organizing gatherings or parties with large number of people attending happens regularly in the UK, nothing significant about it. People organized huge number of protests against her in her lifetime, it is not surprising that people should organize parties when she died. More surprising that there weren't more parties considering how polarizing she was. I have certainly heard enough talk in the UK about celebrating when she died before she actually did to know that something like this that would be organized. I think that if there is a separate article about Thatcher's legacy and public perception of her, then this might be included in such article, but as far as this article goes, it is not that important to warrant inclusion in this article. Hzh (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Would it warrant mention in Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher? Zcbeaton (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why not, and if these celebrations prove to be widespread a sentence in this article would probably be appropriate as well. Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. The key is "time". We don't have to have the article up to the minute, and we serve our readers best by being deliberately cautious, and not publishing something that will be retracted or modified in two hours time. An encyclopedia should allow some of the dust to settle before publishing "facts" about an event. Even a day or two is better than echoing the latest tidbit from the television. We can't possibly know what will have lasting effect less than 24 hours after her death, and all we care about is what does have a lasting effect, so we tread lightly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)'

Exactly not. The quotes praising her are just as transitory, and far more WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. To say that near-universally-reported events can't be included until all interest in Thatcher has died down amounts to an attempt to POVpush while people are paying the most attention they'll pay to her in the short term. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid what you tried to keep putting in the article do suggest to me that you are trying to push a POV. Hzh (talk) 08:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

When the article is being written as hagiography, I see no reason to add additional sources praising her. If the article ever even came close to having an excessively negative tone, then I would find positive sources to balance, but there is little to no chance of me needing to do that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

As your input is uniformly unhelpful, that can only be good news. MalleusFatuorum 16:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No POV there then!!! Basket _Feudalist 17:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

By all means put it in that article, although I'm not sure if her death and funeral is worthy of an article, let alone two. Hzh (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher article existed before Reaction to the death of Margaret Thatcher. I've proposed a merger. Zcbeaton (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've trimmed this back again. Facebook is not a source and detailed laundry-lists of reactions, positive, negative or indifferent can go in the daughter article. --John (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Funeral Reference

Why was the official press release regarding funeral information deemed to be a less important reference than a BBC article? I think we should go to the source, not a third party for information on the funeral plans. NDomer09 (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Please read WP:Sources. By definition, an encyclopedia is a summary of facts based on 3rd party citation, not a parroting of primary sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• Right. Also, the formatting was incorrect, and in a Good Article those things matter. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• Then fix the formatting. I don't think that an official press release regarding a series of events is going to be biased and need to be confirmed by a third party. I'm not going to fight the edit, I just think that is an odd policy in this case.NDomer09 (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Basically, we should be reporting on what's happened, not on what it's anticipated might happen; there are newspapers and TV news channels for that kind of stuff. Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a point of clarification about policy: Primary sources are allowed, but must be used sparingly and with care. The source must directly support the content without any original research. Also, articles should be based primarily on secondary and tertiary sources. See WP:PRIMARY for more information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a good article about one of the most important prime ministers of the 20th century.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

it seems the article was vandalised — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.114.141.203 (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 April 2013

Please remove the third sentence of the second paragraph, as it is simply vulgar name calling, not to mention not having to do with the rest of the paragraph at all. 66.42.163.56 (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The sentence you refer to says that she became Prime Minister in 1979, which she did. It is neither irrelevant nor name calling. Are you sure that's what you meant? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 00:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The sentence (quite rightly) objected to has been removed by Jeremy68. It's a crying shame that some people feel the need to add material like that. Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrong birth year for Denis Thatcher

Spouse(s) Denis Thatcher (1951–2003, his death)

It should be 1915 instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:149:4:1402:D0AD:ADCE:494A:CB5F (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe the 1951 refers to when he became her spouse. NDomer09 (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It does indeed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Reaction to death

Currently there is no international perspective beyond Ireland in this section. There are a number of quotes here that may be useful for rectifying this situation. 86.171.43.156 (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a situation that needs to be rectified. Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That's just where you are wrong. 86.171.43.156 (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that's just where you're wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No, That's just where YOU'RE wrong!!! 24.150.131.48 (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Partying in the streets?

The article currently says "Some reactions were less sympathetic..." but I wonder if that is understating the reactions that are being seen. The Australian (a rather right-wing newspaper) has the heading Margaret Thatcher dies: Some pay tribute while others party in the streets. Should something like this be included? (And no doubt there will be a growing chorus of disapproval to this reaction...) StAnselm (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Have there actually been any parties? Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the article? In Brixton, holding notices saying "Rejoice - Thatcher is dead", about 200 people gathered in the neighbourhood, a hotspot of alternative culture, and toasted her passing by drinking and dancing to hip-hop and reggae songs blaring from sound systems. StAnselm (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I've never been to a party where people gather holding notices, have you? Malleus Fatuorum 03:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I certainly think drinking and dancing qualifies as a party... StAnselm (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you hold up banners at the parties you go to? Malleus Fatuorum 04:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

In any case, that's irrelevant - it was described by a reliable source as a party. StAnselm (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not it is one's idea of a "party", it is certainly unusual (in the Western world) and notable to celebrate the death of a political dignitary in such a way. This does bear mentioning, does it not? It certainly speaks to her character and the way she was seen by the public, which is to say that she was a controversial figure to say the least (not that her death was controversial). See also "Margaret Thatcher and misapplied death etiquette" in the Guardian and innumerable comments about "you either loved her or hated her". —sroc (talk) 05:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It speaks of her polarizing nature and that assessment should be done in the Legacy section. The section on her death is becoming some place where people are trying to push a particular POV, so I'm removing all reactions and events since they aren't really important. Hzh (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you spill my pint? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Classic! Basket _Feudalist 13:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that's what I call a party: loud music, vandalism, fighting the police and rioting. 13:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The large scale celebration of her death

There have been parties all over Britain in celebration of Margaret Thatcher's death, as reported in numerous reliable sources in mainstream media. Of course this should be mentioned in the article. The chant "Maggie Maggie Maggie! Dead dead dead!" has been reliably reported to have been chanted at many of these celebrations, e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. etc. etc. - a wide range of different sources in newspapers arranged across the political spectrum.

Celebrating someone's death is not something that most human beings like to do, and this has happened with Margaret Thatcher because she was so hated by so many people, and remains hated, even 23 years after she left office. The basic point in the relevant section of the article should be that there have been many parties to celebrate her death - and a list should be given of some of the towns and areas where they have been held, with links to reliable sources. The list includes London, Glasgow, Bristol, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Brighton, Bradford, Birmigham, Hull, Manchester, Edinburgh, Dundee, Cardiff, Carlisle, Bury St Edmunds, Cambridge, Doncaster, Falmouth, Hastings, Leicester, Luton, Oxford, Norwich, Nottingham, Newcastle, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Rotherham, Sunderland, York, Leicester, Warrington, Aberystwyth, Swansea, Belfast, Dublin, Venice, Barcelona, and Stockholm. There has never been anything like this before.

It should also be mentioned whereas when she was prime minister, "Maggie Maggie Maggie! Out out out!" was a well-known chant, now, according to reliable reports (see above), this has changed to "Maggie Maggie Maggie! Dead dead dead!" This chant has been reported in so many sources to have been used at so many of the street celebrations, that it should obviously be mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Something is clearly going on here that is important, notable, and significant. Some people may welcome it, others may think it's ugly and horrible, but it is happening, it is being reliably reported, and ignoring it would be ridiculous.Crebble (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

We can't let the sentence stay uncontextualised that says that "small groups" celebrated her death. I suggest we quote this this article by Stephen Glover in the Daily Mail, which says "Never in modern times, and probably not in the entire history of these islands, has the demise of a public figure been greeted with such euphoria and wild expressions of hate." Many of us may feel that these celebrations are in poor taste, but they and their unprecedented scale are obviously encyclopaedic. We should refer to their scale in the article. Is there any argument against this? The scale has been reported in many many reliable sources, and commented upon by leading politicians across the spectrum.Crebble (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307104/Margaret-Thatcher-death-party-This-lack-respect-dead-disturbing-new-low.html#ixzz2QF0z0mts

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The Thatcher government encouraged growth in the finance and service sectors to compensate for Britain's ailing manufacturing industry.

Do we have any citations/sources that show that Thatcher connected these different economic areas and really liberated the finance sector because of an ailing manufacturing sector? Cinquero (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Bulgaria, formerly a part of the Soviet Union

I am going to walk away for a while before I break 3RR or any other fundamental norms. It'd be great if I could rely on others to protect the article against the test edits of the illiterate and the ignorant. --John (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Not too much chance of that I don't think. Malleus Fatuorum 13:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

What is all this nonsense about the National Front?

In the domestic affairs section of the article there is a great deal about the National Front. This party has only ever been a tiny, marginal party in the UK whose support peaked at 0.6% of the vote in 1979. This is contrary to the article which says the Conservatives in 1979: "..attracted voters from the National Front, whose support almost collapsed."

I suggest the first paragraph on Domestic affairs is corrected to read:

Thatcher was Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister at a time of increased racial tension in Britain. Her standing in the polls rose by 11 percent after a January 1978 interview for World in Action in which she said "the British character has done so much for democracy, for law and done so much throughout the world that if there is any fear that it might be swamped people are going to react and be rather hostile to those coming in."; and "in many ways [minorities] add to the richness and variety of this country. The moment the minority threatens to become a big one, people get frightened."[64][65]. In a meeting in July 1979 with Lord Carrington (the Foreign Secretary) and William Whitelaw (Home Secretary) she objected to the number of Asian immigrants,[68] in the context of limiting the number of Vietnamese boat people allowed to settle in the UK to fewer than 10,000.

The National Front is widely reviled in the UK (eg: by the other 99.4% of the electorate in 1979) and I cannot help but think that linking Thatcher to the NF is a weasely smear.Quiduck (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's meant like that; there certainly was (and therfore may still be) a perception that that was the case at the time.
In fact (on edit) she made that linkage herself. This from the WP National Front article (not in itself a WP:RS but does cite one):

At the same time, Margaret Thatcher as opposition leader was moving the Tory party back to the right and away from the moderate Heathite stance which had caused some Conservatives to join the NF. Many ex-Tories returned to the fold from the NF or its myriad splinter groups, in particular after her "swamping" remarks on the ITV documentary series World In Action on 30 January 1978:

"... we do not talk about it [immigration] perhaps as much as we should. In my view, that is one thing that is driving some people to the National Front. They do not agree with the objectives of the National Front, but they say that at least they are talking about some of the problems.... If we do not want people to go to extremes... we must show that we are prepared to deal with it. We are a British nation with British characteristics."

Basket _Feudalist 10:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You could add this text if you wanted, let her own words describe her. My objection is that there is a smear by an implied association in the text that reads like a political attack rather than an encyclopedic article. It is just not professional. Quiduck (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

But the NF, at its peak in 1979 was only supported by 0.6% of the electorate. Come on, be professional about this. I never voted Tory but this is just weasely. Quiduck (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It's well-referenced and was present when the article passed GA. I propose we keep it. --John (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

But it is factually inaccurate, the NF was at its apogee in 1979. but the article says "In the 1979 General Election, the Conservatives attracted voters from the National Front, whose support almost collapsed." Check the article National Front. Look, you may hate Thatcher but this is an encyclopedia, to introduce a party that was a tiny minority as if it was a major part of Thatcher's popularity is simply wrong. Also it is obvious why it has been done - implied smearing. To be fair you should at least mention that the NF, at its peak in 1979, was only supported by 0.6% of the electorate. It was not like the French National Front but the article gives the impression that this was the case. Quiduck (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You may think you know better than the academic sources we used in writing the article, but Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Find the sources that back up your opinions and bring them here so we can take a look. --John (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that I know better than those sources, I am saying that their inclusion in this encyclopedic article is inappropriate. Quiduck (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it could be better phrased, but the sentiment is correct. The sources indicate that MT's remarks and stance on immigration led to the NF's support at the polls being wiped out. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It is immaterial whether the NF was wiped out or at their peak, they were such a tiny minority that they do not desreve a mention. (In fact the NF were at their peak in 1979: National_Front_(UK)_election_results, National Front despite Thatcher but my point is that apogee or perigee they are too small to mention, a shift of 30% of NF voters to the Tories would only add 0.3% of the electorate to Tory support). The edit I am suggesting keeps all the text about immigration. This was the suggestion:

Thatcher was Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister at a time of increased racial tension in Britain. Her standing in the polls rose by 11 percent after a January 1978 interview for World in Action in which she said "the British character has done so much for democracy, for law and done so much throughout the world that if there is any fear that it might be swamped people are going to react and be rather hostile to those coming in."; and "in many ways [minorities] add to the richness and variety of this country. The moment the minority threatens to become a big one, people get frightened."[64][65]. In a meeting in July 1979 with Lord Carrington (the Foreign Secretary) and William Whitelaw (Home Secretary) she objected to the number of Asian immigrants,[68] in the context of limiting the number of Vietnamese boat people allowed to settle in the UK to fewer than 10,000.

The focus on a tiny minority party that had and has no Parliamentary seats and has never had significant support is unprofessional. Let Thatcher condemn herself, she does not need the addition of implied smears. Quiduck (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, are you from the past??? Did you even read what I wrote? The source is -HER- -OWN- -SPEECH- Capisce?!?! Basket _Feudalist 11:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I said I would be happy for you to include it in the Domestic affairs section, it is Thatcher's own words.. It is the smearing by implied association with the NF that is unprofessional. The reason this quote has not been used is that Brown, Cameron and even Miliband have said similar things recently about driving voters into the arms of the BNP. Quiduck (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

They had some good showings in the mid 1970s, but I haven't had time to look. For now, this, from National Front: In May 1973, in a by-election in West Bromwich West, the National Front candidate, the party's National Activities Organizer, Martin Webster, polled 4,789 votes (16.2%), a result which shook the political and media Establishment.'. Hardly 0.6%, hardly 'never had significant support', and time to put this to bed. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, but that predates her leadership and is the only time they saved their deposit. Look at the General Election table at the top of the page you link to (edit: actually here). 192k votes cast in the 1979 election for the NF out of 31.2m. Not significant. And '79 was their peak. Bromley86 (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 April 2013

In the Domestic affairs section of the article there is a great deal about the National Front. This party has only ever been a tiny, marginal party in the UK whose support peaked at 0.6% of the vote in 1979. This is contrary to the article which says the Conservatives in 1979: "..attracted voters from the National Front, whose support almost collapsed."

I suggest the first paragraph on Domestic affairs is corrected to read:

Thatcher was Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister at a time of increased racial tension in Britain. Her standing in the polls rose by 11 percent after a January 1978 interview for World in Action in which she said "the British character has done so much for democracy, for law and done so much throughout the world that if there is any fear that it might be swamped people are going to react and be rather hostile to those coming in."; and "in many ways [minorities] add to the richness and variety of this country. The moment the minority threatens to become a big one, people get frightened."[64][65]. In a meeting in July 1979 with Lord Carrington (the Foreign Secretary) and William Whitelaw (Home Secretary) she objected to the number of Asian immigrants,[68] in the context of limiting the number of Vietnamese boat people allowed to settle in the UK to fewer than 10,000.

The National Front is widely reviled in the UK (eg: by the other 99.4% of the electorate in 1979) and I cannot help but think that linking Thatcher to the NF is a weasely smear. Quiduck (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template.

There is obviously not going to be a consensus. Thatcher was not a fascist but I suppose there are limits to the professionalism and objectivity of Wikipedia contributors. This is my last comment - I have to go to lunch. Bye.. Quiduck (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You appeared to be out to lunch already. No-one but you has ever suggested she was a fascist. And you appear to purposely misunderstand the simplest statements made to you on the subject. Bon appetite! Basket _Feudalist 12:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Free school milk

The article currently implies that removal of school milk was Thatcher's personal policy. This is not true as we now know from cabinet papers of the time. For reference, see the Independent newspaper here - "What is little known is that Mrs Thatcher actually opposed ending school milk and was forced into the position by the Treasury". Perhaps we should also note in this section the popular belief that she was responsible for removal of all free milk for schoolchildren and point out that this is not correct - milk for secondary school children was withdrawn by Ted Short and for 5-7 year olds by Shirley Williams. --Prh47bridge (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If that's true, then go ahead! Basket _Feudalist 12:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Done but it could do with a citation for the popular belief that Thatcher abolished all free school milk. I can find a couple of comments making that assertion on Wiki Answers, for example, but I don't think that is really what is needed. --Prh47bridge (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiAnswers is not a reliable independent source in and of itself; it is a self-referencing, circular one, and not acceptable as an original source unless it contains a valid independent reliable source when can be explored and accessed. Quis separabit? 15:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

...which has already been dealt with!!! Basket _Feudalist 15:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Found this, quite detailed from a couple of years ago, from the Indie: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7932963/How-Margaret-Thatcher-became-known-as-Milk-Snatcher.html so put the link in after the 'TTMS' quote. Move it if you think it would sit better further on? -as there's already a ref. at that point. Basket _Feudalist 12:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Street parties after death

Should these be mentioned in the 'death' section? They've received substantial media coverage: [12] [13] [14] -- Half past formerly SUFCboy 17:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead!!! Cheers Basket _Feudalist 17:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably better here? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, this now: Brits send "Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead" into music charts after Thatcher's death, It could reach even No. #1 on the charts. More info Cowicide (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This one was posted on 7 May 2011: [15]. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC) although this poster uses the quaint Gaelic spelling, using b to represent [w]

Bell I never!!! Basket _Feudalist 16:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Currently at Number 10 (lol), highest entry in the midweek chart: [16] Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Much has been said about the need to include the unusually negative reactions to Lady Thatcher's death, an indication of the public's attitudes towards her throughout her prime ministership. These reactions have now been compiled but sectioned off at Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher#Others, even though they are not merely relevant as reactions to her death but more significantly point to her political legacy. Meanwhile, the section in the main article at Margaret Thatcher#Political legacy consists of eight generally glowing paragraphs concluded by one which is rather mildly critical, but there is no suggestion of the strong discontentment amongst (at least some sections of) the community in general. Surely the "Legacy" section in the main article should at least include a passing reference to this with a link to the reactions to her death in the other article? This is in the interests of WP:NPOV by reflecting a balance of views. —sroc (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Supreme facepalm of destiny... Oh my gawd~! Ladies and germs, here are more evidence that WP has gone the way of those worldly... ahem, tabloids. (Might I interest you guys to read up on WP:Neutral point of view#Explanation of the neutral point of view?) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 02:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view." — Explanation of the neutral point of view

Hence, the article now includes this: "In keeping with the often controversial nature of her political stances, Thatcher's death trigged a mix of public reactions, many of which were less than complimentary."

If the wording of this statement is perceived an non-neutral, by all means change it, but to remove it entirely would be to omit a prominent point of view which would be altogether contrary to NPOV. —sroc (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I know that was well-intentioned but it was awful. I took it out. --John (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Awful in what sense? As I said, if it's the way it's worded, re-word it. But why remove a significant viewpoint? —sroc (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." — WP:Neutral point of view#Achieving neutrality

What about this: "Thatcher's death raised a mix of reactions, including many which criticised her political philosophies and time in office."

Surely that is accurate, referenced, relevant to her legacy, and consistent with WP:NPOV. If it isn't, please be clear about precisely what the issue is with reference to the specific aspect of WP policy so that the issue can be understood and corrected — rather than summarily dismissing it without explanation, which would be unhelpful and disrespectful. —sroc (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That looks good to me. -- Half past formerly SUFCboy 13:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Or "on her death some people took the opportunity to praise her while others took the opportunity to criticise her". Whoopee. Mr Stephen (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I've added:

Thatcher's death raised a mix of reactions, with many praising her leadership and achievements whilst others criticised her political philosophies and time in office. Detractors celebrated the news across the UK and the Daily Telegraph was forced to close comments on its online articles about Thatcher because of hateful "abuse".

The first sentence is a re-working of the above proposed wording, trying to maintain a sense of balance (noting that the "Political legacy" section is mostly favourable already anyway). The second sentence draws in a bit more of the reaction, all of which is sourced and already included at Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher. Hopefully this complies with WP policy. If not, please specify why it doesn't. Please make an effort to keep this information, and edit it if necessary to comply with WP policy, rather than remove it entirely. The article, and this section in particular, will suffer by failing to "fairly represent[] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources".[17] —sroc (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Like Mr Stephen, I am underwhelmed by this. There is certainly no need to have multiple links to the death article. One is plenty. There is no reason we would want to inject tabloid "sources" into this when we have decent ones. --John (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

There certainly is reason to include a link to the Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher#Reactions article/section when we are talking about mixed reactions to her death: (1) it is directly relevant to the immediate discussion; (2) it aids a full understanding of the subject; (3) the earlier link to the Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher article (generally) is in the "Death" section, not the "Legacy" section; (4) it would not be immediately apparent to someone reading the Thatcher article that a link to Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher under the "Death" section would also include more detailed information about reactions to her death when reading the "Legacy" section. In any event, having two separate links in two separate sections in two separate contexts (where one is a link to a specific section on that page) is hardly overkill.

The use of tabloid sources is an entirely separate issue. —sroc (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:OVERLINK: "…the choice of whether or not to repeat a link should consider whether the added value of linking a particular occurrence outweighs the consequent dilution of the value of other links." IMHO, the value of the in-context link from "mixed reactions" to the "Reactions" section of the other article does tip the scales. —sroc (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, the line:

"Thatcher's death raised a mix of reactions, with many praising her leadership and achievements whilst others criticised her political philosophies and time in office."

has now been reduced to:

"Thatcher's death prompted criticism and praise."

This rather misses the point — it is unusual that a person's death prompts a mix of criticism amidst the usual compliments — and the edited version rather understates the significance of the criticism in the context of Thatcher's legacy. (The absence of a link to the detailed reactions further deprives the reader of a full understanding of this.) —sroc (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It is far from unusual for the death of a controversial politician to produce a mixture of praise and criticism. It would have been astonishing if anything else had happened. Ronald Reagan was a similar case. Is it really worth recording that Tony Blair praised her and George Galloway cursed her, or whatever? Will it be important in 10 years? --John (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not the predictable opinions of politicians that are significant - it's the extraordinary polarisation of popular opinion that still divides the UK, twenty years after she lost power, between at one extreme people demanding the erection of a statue in Trafalgar Square, and at the other extreme crowd-sourced parties in celebration of her death. That polarisation would be extraordinary in any country, but particularly in Britain, where I doubt it's been seen since the time of the Chartists in the early 19th century. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Part of the significance of the deep divisions in public reaction may be in the sense of unrest which seems to be brewing, and the consequences which this unrest may have next week when the epic (and apparently very costly) funeral takes place, e.g. [18]. How will people who are losing benefits for having empty spare rooms feel about a few million being spent on Baroness Thatcher's military honours send-off? [19] Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned that there seems to be an attempt to keep any mention of negative reaction to her (e.g. the popularity of "Ding! Dong! The witch is dead!", street parties celebrating her passing etc.) from this article; as mentioned above by Ghmyrtle, this sort of extreme reaction is unprecedented, certainly in recent years, and is therefore notable enough to require mention. Hiving it off into an article about her death smacks of non-NPOV, surely.--TraceyR (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You may be forgetting that this is an encyclopaedia article rather than a news piece. As a serious resource, we apply different criteria for inclusion than a newspaper does. Do you think this will still be notable in 10 years? 20 years? If the answer is seriously "yes", then maybe we can talk about putting in material like this. --John (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. Even in 40 years time it will still be significant that she had a polarising and deeply divisive influence on this country; the reactions to her death are clear evidence of this. Omitting to mention them would be falsifying the record (and smack of hagiography). More objectivity and less whitewash are required. --TraceyR (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Nothing like it happened when, say, Churchill died, or Attlee, or Wilson. We won't know for certain until 10 or 20 years have passed, but the balance of probabilities is that this polarisation has more than fleeting significance. But obviously we need to use good sources that report on the fact. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

When was the last time Parliament was recalled from recess to "pay tribute" to a former Prime Minister, (unsurprisingly with the opposition benches half empty)? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

John would probably prefer to report that as "half full" ;-) --TraceyR (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Your personalising of this discussion is noted. I find that unacceptable. Malleus and I put a lot of work into improving this article and it is offensive to see editors like yourself rubbishing our attempts to defend it against recentism and popular culture trash. --John (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you choose to take offence at my attempt at an amusing aside. I'm not sure what you consider to be "rubbishing, either. I'm sure that everyone who makes contributions here believes that he/she is "improving this article". The trouble is when editors persist in promoting their own POV when there is a consensus for a different one, as is the case with mentioning critical reactions to her legacy, spontaneous street parties, keeping links to a daughter article etc. BTW there is a wonderful essay which I can recommend.--TraceyR (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Now you're taking the piss, and that's noted too. I'd certainly agree about the problem being "editors ... promoting their own POV". Remind me, where were you when we were getting the article to GA status? --John (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Please explain the relevance of that remark. Are you suggesting that, having helped to achieve GA status on this article, you and others have acquired some sort of ownership rights here? I hope not, because that would be of couse contrary to WP policy. I am concerned that a consensus view re reactions to her death is being deliberately suppressed (several reverts).--TraceyR (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's please be civil, keep discussions focussed on improving the article in line with WP policy, and not make things personal. Although John, since you brought it up, and with all due respect to the work you and others have put into building a great article, comments like "maybe we can talk about putting in material like this" can come across as condescending. Remember, no one owns WP articles, but we should all respect each other's work and assume good faith. Thanks to John and everyone to contributing comments on the talk page and helping build consensus. —sroc (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what is meant by "popular culture trash". But it is unfortunate that the efforts of some hard-working editors may have been misinterpreted as just the defence of a much hated political figure who is still referred to by many as "TBW". Real world events can put what were once considered very good articles into a very different perspective - Jimmy Savile being a recent case in point. I guess we all still have the funeral to "look forward to", as it were. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

By popular culture trash, I mean Facebook and the like. There's an element of recentism and POV-pushing in the repeated efforts to include multiple links to the daughter article. One link is plenty. --John (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, FB and YT... the deadly dual nemesis of any good on-line encyclopedia (?). Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

John, I see that you have deleted the link to the reactions to Thatcher's death again. With respect, I disagree with your comment that "[o]ne link [to the daughter article] is plenty."

(1) Currently, the only link to the "daughter article" is a hatnote at the top of the "Death" section:

Main article: Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher

It is not evident from this hatnote that the daughter article also includes information about reactions to her death, and the casual reader would not assume there is such content to be found there;

(2) Where there is reference to the polarised reactions to her death (e.g., "Thatcher's death prompted criticism as well as praise"), the "Reactions" section of the daughter article is especially relevant;

(3) A specific link to the "Reactions" section of the daughter article aids a full understanding of the reactions that is otherwise not available from the parent article;

(4) It would be particularly helpful to have a link to the "Reactions" section of the daughter article under the "Legacy" section of the article, since there is no existing link to the daughter article in that section at all;

(5) As noted by TraceyR, there appears to be a tendency to hide negative reactions, firstly, by cordoning them off in a separate article (whose title does not refer to reactions at all), and secondly, by failing to link to that article in the appropriate place when discussing reactions to her death within the parent article;

(6) Having two separate links to the daughter article — in two separate sections of the parent article (one under "Death", one under "Legacy"), in two separate contexts (one in relation to her death, one in relation to reactions), where one links to the daughter article generally whilst the other links to a specific section — is not overkill.

As noted above, the overlink policy states: "…the choice of whether or not to repeat a link should consider whether the added value of linking a particular occurrence outweighs the consequent dilution of the value of other links." In light of the above enumerated points, IMHO, the second link should be included. Even if the exact wording of the policy did not allow for such consideration, we could always ignore the rule and include it in light of these considerations. As you haven't given any clear reason to refute the above points in order to justify your view that "[o]ne link is plenty," it appears that you may be sticking too rigidly to the idea of "one link per page" without considering the full context.

In light of the various comments above, it seems that the tide of consensus is in favour of having a link to the "Reactions" section in the appropriate context here. —sroc (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way:

(7) The paragraph on reactions under "Political legacy" only has one other wikilink; another link is hardly going to deluge the page in a sea of blue. —sroc (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for these well-reasoned points, with which (fwiw) I agree. A consensus is needed on this issue. Surely, if it is not resolved, the article's GA status would be in doubt.--TraceyR (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the GA criteria? Which one covers "the article doesn't link to what I'd like it to link to"? Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite right. It doesn't require every article to mention Woolly Mammoths either ;-) It does however require articles to e.g. neutral and stable, neither of which are satisfied by this article.--TraceyR (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be a little confused about the GA criteria. In case you hadn't realised, Margaret Thatcher died a few days ago, so of course the article has needed to be updated. Doesn't make it "unstable" though. Malleus Fatuorum 05:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would respond sensibly, not just to the last point which caught your attention. There were two points: (1) Neutrality and (2) Stability. And of course the latter doesn't refer to the spate of amendments following her death, but e.g. to the repeated reverts (lack of stability) of entries mentioning critical reponses to her death (lack of neutrality). --TraceyR (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That's such a stupid thing to say that it quite literally boggles my mind. So you're saying that unless you get a greater number of links to the daughter article than OVERLINK provides for (how many were you looking for? Three? Four?) you contend that the article does not meet the criteria? Here's a clue for you; neutrality is achieved by using reliable sources (ie not Facebook or the Daily Mail) in correct proportions to reflect the real-world coverage. --John (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This is starting to look like a competition for which of you can make the greatest number of non-sequiturs in this thread. Weird! --TraceyR (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone keeps re-adding the POV tag

I can't remove it again as it'll trigger another inevitable 3RR report, but I just wanted to say that I think it's fucking ridiculous. Or however you're supposed to say that in Wiki-La-La Land. Malleus Fatuorum 17:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, off the record, I've never reported a 3RR in my Wikareer I happen to think it's a coward's way of winning. But obviously I don't speak for anyone else, so am unable to advise. Basket _Feudalist 17:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

ooo, Wiki-La-La Land... isn't that where editors just discuss things, without automatically swearing in every other breath? 109.153.216.168 (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

POV tag

Instead of attempting to force 3RR, Malodorous Factory should discuss on talk, and attempt to resolve the issues. Being bold isn't the same as ignoring the facts. Basket _Feudalist 17:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I note your deliberate insult and will correspondingly treat you with the contempt you so richly deserve. Malleus Fatuorum 17:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Heeey, Veteran content writer, cheer up!!! Basket _Feudalist 17:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It might be better to discuss what you want to change here rather than edit-war and insult people here. --John (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Removing tags without discussion... you rest my case. And if you read the discussion; I have been fully insulted here but, ignoring it, act like an adult, viz, focussing on the issues. Basket _Feudalist 19:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, the purpose of a POV tag it to start a discussion. Since the topic is already under discussion, adding is gratuitous and unnecessary, to the point that it may be perceived as a non-neutral act itself (See WP:POINT). Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

@Dennis: So is it a question of timing? If the POV tag is used to start a discussion, then, it's OK? But if used afterwards, then it's not OK? What do we do about editors who aren't aware of the tag until after the discussion has started? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for Recent Death tag

It suprised me the recent death template isn't on this article already. Being a semiprotected article, I can't put it on, So if there's anyone with access who agrees, can they put it on? Thanks. 108.65.189.25 (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It's been on and removed already. --John (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

John removed both the POV and RD tags...without discussion. Basket _Feudalist 19:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

So you can't read then? That must make editing here really difficult. How do you manage? --John (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Could someone possibly remind editors what the rationale/ rule is for using this tag? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Could someone possibly remind John what the rationale/ rule is about WP:CIVILITY? Basket _Feudalist 19:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

(I didn't realise that Steve Nallon was a "tag" and I am also surprised that his name, as one of the prime Thatcher satirists, does not appear in the "Cultural depictions" section. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Change of subject..., re: 'Cultural Depictions', what about that James Bond film "she" was portrayed in? Diamonds Are Forever maybe, or Thunderball...? -can't remember now. Anyway it wasn't her but Janet Brown. Basket _Feudalist 19:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Just seen, the feller Benej posted 'wot I said' (almost!) a few minutes ago. Many thanks... ...I don't wear sandals... or socks! LOL Basket _Feudalist 19:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Spitting Image etc

Wikipedia is not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'd suggest that nearly the whole basis of the SI satirical portrayal was that Thatcher was, in fact, a man - who wore trousers, used urinals, smoked cigars, etc. etc. Her being a tyrant and bully, especially to her own Ministers, was more or less assumed as an ancillary fact. The importance of that portrayal is hard to overlook, and to many was second only to Steve Bell's If... in The Grauniad. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Remember the classic, in the restaurant? (raw steak / vegetables etc), couldn't find it on YT. Classic! Thanks to SI, a whole generation grew up to that completely misguided view of her. Basket Feudalist 19:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Funny how "da yoofs" enjoy being so misguided, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Well: they didn't have the real thing did they-!!! Fair point though; the Simpsons a 'recent' equivalent maybe...? Basket Feudalist 19:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a forum, although you fellows are interesting. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I was suggesting that Steve Bell ought to be mentioned. It's shame the "main articlé" referred to there is just a list. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Activities in WWII?

Is anything known about any activities, voluntary or compulsory, she did in World War II? Many Britons of her age, even younger, were in military service or war work or in voluntary services (eg Red Cross) and she seems to have stayed untroubled at Oxford University while so many of her peers interrupted or postponed their studies to volunteer or be drafted. Did she have any cited views about the war and its effort? As she appealed so much to patriotism and was an enthusiastic visitor of the armed services as PM, this is a question I am sure must be on many minds when we know through your pages and elsewhere what Ronald Reagan, Pope Benedict, and the future Elizabeth II were doing in 1945, when Thatcher was nearing age 20.Cloptonson (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Good question. --John (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

John Campbell's first volume devotes several pages to this period. At a quick read there is no mention of her doing anything organised, indeed Campbell finds it "a little odd" that she chose to go back to school for the year before going up to Oxford (remember this year was cut short) rather than joining a womens' service or doing other war work. Campbell does make some comments on the war and the unusual perspective her experience (as a non-combatant) gave her amongst politicians of her era, and that foreigners were either US (good) enemies (bad) or the rest (feeble). All very obvious with hindsight. Mr Stephen (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Law School?

There seems to be very little information given about how she became a lawyer. It says that she "took the bar" but did she go to Law School? If so, where? If not, why not? Is that not required in the U.K.? 68.199.204.112 (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It can be presumed that she qualified in the usual way. There is no need to specify details unless notable and supported by references. —sroc (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Evening classes starting in 1950. Mr Stephen (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Less sycophancy / More Balance

Poverty under Thatcher http://charts-datawrapper.s3.amazonaws.com/EWoNF/fs.html Inequality under Thatcher http://charts-datawrapper.s3.amazonaws.com/GcW5j/fs.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.221.103 (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think one would want to see the time series extended some way back from 1977 before one could draw any conclusions from these data. But the steady rise of the inequality score does seem to be quite a strong trend. Not that cause and effect are easy to tease apart, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Abuse of sources in the "Legacy" section

There are at least two sources misused to make misleading or, in one case, to say the exact opposite of the source.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/datablog/2013/apr/08/britain-changed-margaret-thatcher-charts says "She may have been our first prime minister but men still ended her decade paid a lot more than women - especially if you look at the bald figures below." followed by a chart entitled "The pay gap got worse".

In the article, that source is used to reference the statement "women's pay rose dramatically to the highest level on record and stayed there"

I think you can agree that's not at all justified by the source.

The second one I found is still a ridiculous abuse of sources, although there's at least a slight basis: "Margaret Thatcher revitalised Britain's economy, curbed the trade unions, and re-established the nation as a world power." is cited to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3681973.stm . Unfortunately, the source text presumably meant to justify that reads "To her supporters, she was a revolutionary figure who transformed Britain's stagnant economy, tamed the unions and re-established the country as a world power." - the unqualified statement used in the article is not equivalent.

I've thrown an Original research tag on the legacy section. Please do not remove it until a full review of sources is finished.

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. Next time, just remove stuff like this rather than tagging it. --John (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Given how controversial this article is, I think it's better to bring it up, but I'll remove it after discussing it here next time. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Thank you. --John (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree with John, those are two excellent catches and are prime examples of how source data can be misused to support a given agenda. It shows that diligence in checking the sources really does pay off. Well done, Adam. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

State Funeral?

Whilst it is technically correct to say she is not having a state funeral and is rather having a ceremonial funeral. It seems misleading to say this without mentioning that her funeral is costing £8 million pounds, funded in part by the state, and is the same level of funeral accorded to Princess Diana and the Queen Mother and that it requires consent of the Queen to give someone a ceremonial funeral - indeed this is the highest level of funeral accorded to normally accorded to non-royals. I also see no evidence in either source or anywhere else that the reason for her not having a state funeral is "In accordance with her wishes and custom", it seems more to link to the fact that state funerals are usually only for royals not ex-PMs (indeed I think a ceremonial funeral is a fairly high honour for an ex-PM) and this also seems to imply she is not having a state funded funeral to anyone who knows a little about her history.
In short could I suggest, 1 - removing the sentence "In accordance with her wishes and custom" unless anyone can find a source to support this 2 - adding a sentence clarifying that the ceremonial funeral is being funded in part by the state and is a type of funeral often held for minor royals etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.163.29 (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Salmond quote

The article reads

“ Shortly after Thatcher's death, Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond argued that her policies had the "unintended effect" of making a devolved Scottish Parliament appear "absolutely essential".[263] Lord Foulkes agreed on Scotland Tonight that she had provided "the impetus" for devolution. ”

I think this downplays the original quote a bit, which is:

“ Hence the unintended consequence that I think a lot of people in Scotland, looking at the poll tax, thought to themselves, well, the Scottish Parliament instead of just being a nice idea was something that was absolutely essential to prevent such a policy being imposed from on high again. That was an unintended consequence but a hugely important one. ”

In my opinion, if we're going to discuss reactions, we should select ones that look back on the good and bad aspects of her life, and show how she's remembered, and how her policies affected people moving forwards. I think the full quote does this, but the way it's presented now is so vague as to be meaningless. I'll do an edit adding in more of the quote, but wanted to explain why. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Remind me. The poll tax was very much MT's baby, but introducing it first in Scotland was not her idea, but the Scottish Office's. It was introduced before the election, but was it introduced because of the election or because of upcoming revaluation for rates purposes? Rates were very unpopular in Scotland; what were the alternatives at the time? "Failure in British government: The politics of the poll tax" by Butler is the number one source, but I don't have it. Mr Stephen (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of people have had something to say about Thatcher, so why is Alex Salmonds quote the only one really presented in the legacy section? Can we have some MORE? --85.211.123.9 (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Original research

“ In 2011, Labour leader Ed Miliband praised some of Thatcher's key policies, stating: "Some of what happened in the 1980s was right. It was right to let people buy their council houses. It was right to cut tax rates of 60, 70, 80 per cent. And it was right to change the rules on the closed shop, on strikes before ballots. These changes were right, and we were wrong to oppose it at the time." ”

While the quote is real, it's pure original research to make the interpretation without a source making it already. See WP:SYNTH. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Removed. --John (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thatcher effect

The image at Thatcher effect would be improved if it was actually of Thatcher. This visual phenomenon may not be worthy of mention in the main article, but does it warrant a See Also entry? Maybe this wasn't the appropriate way of raising the issue.. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 16:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Thompson's original 1980 Perception paper was called "Margaret Thatcher: a new illusion", although it has really nothing to do with her personally. But York Conservative Association were credited for supplying the "stimulus material". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC) p.s. I think Kiefer must prefer his ladies upside down, politically speaking of course.

This is a discussion for Talk:Thatcher_effect, not here. —sroc (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Not even sure it belongs here as a See also. --John (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. I left the first (removed) comment at the end of a ridiculously long edit-binge. To be serious for a sec though, it's a real pity this never made it's way into the article before the 8th.. Really though, it's my own fault for being an utter coward in not trying to put things like that (and other info i had gleaned in my pre-wiki days) into the article. I haven't any particular drum to bang r.e. political views, linking public figures to murders will do for me. Far too much time has been spent examining Maggie's legacy at home, where arguments could be made about how many suffered or died etc, when if you look abroad (and seriously you can take yr pick of countries) you can find much more 'relevant' stuff. But, as the document attached says in conclusion:

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on. - Old Arab proverb

Hillbillyholiday ^talk 02:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Penman reader Basket _Feudalist 16:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure Thompson used her image only because she was Prime Minister and thus a very well-known face to the UK public at the time. The dogs salivate, but the Caravan moves on. Old Freudian proverb Martinevans123 (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

What does Penman reader mean? Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

80% growth of total wealth??

I've deleted a startling claim (twice) that Thatcher presided over 80% total growth in personal wealth. The source is a book that I can't find on questia or any online resources. I see it on Amazon, so it's clearly a real book, but the referenced page is not available online. The notion that there was an 80% growth in total wealth in GB under her seems impossible given GB's GDP was around 2-3% annually under her (and 23% total). If this is a real claim, you need a better source. It's just too startling of a claim that doesn't make intuitive sense.Jasonnewyork (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Try a library, or buy a copy like I did. Sheesh. --John (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Everyone seems to just be saying "it's a valid source" without addressing the underlying point. I just looked at GB's site for the office of economic statistics, and this notion that wealth grew by 80% from 1979-1990 is really unfounded. It actually was flat from 1987-1991 (it goes on an arc up and down but ends up where it started), and it only grew about 18% from 1979-1987. I understand that you have a book that claims otherwise, but it just doesn't make intuitive sense given the economic landscape of GB during that period.Jasonnewyork (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you a published expert in international economics? I am not, but I suspect we may be looking at different statistics using different indicators of wealth. Marr does not claim "total wealth" as you say, but "total personal wealth". I suspect that this may relate to the growth of share ownership (privatisation) and the sale of council houses, as stated in the previous sentence. My original research or yours won't cut any ice here though. If there are other sources you wish to bring to the discussion, feel free to bring them. You lost a lot of credibility in my eyes though by calling Marr a "dummy source". --John (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Try briefly searching google for another source. The book is on 'British theatre' mind you. More can be gleaned in a more appropriate source pg 39 here to precis this 2nd ref - they are (more or less) wildly guesstimating when evaluating personal wealth in the UK for this period. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 09:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC) (p.s. i did state earlier that i was about to embark on a wee wiki-break, but i just can't tear myself away)

And you've got to love Marr, if only for this gem: "[a] lot of [political] bloggers seem to be socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed young men sitting in their mother's basements and ranting. They are very angry people." Hillbillyholiday ^talk 09:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A better way of addressing both your concerns here would just be to add something like: It has been stated that total personal wealth rose by 80 per cent, however, as cabinet minister Sir Ian Gilmour has noted, the Thatcher era was : "characterized by inadequate, and sometimes deliberately misleading obfuscation of government statistics." [20]

John, I do like Marr, but he's not 'all that' by any means, did you see any of Andrew Marr's History of the World? I only remember I soon started to shout at the TV and my Dad suggested we watch something else! 'Facile regurgitation' was the over-riding impression. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 10:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It's feasible for total personal wealth's share of GDP to have grown by 80%, if e.g. it started at 1% of GDP (or whatever) and reached 1.8% during Thatcher's period in office. Just a thought. But the Gilmour quote (a reliable source) casts doubts on any such govt. figures at the time. --TraceyR (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

My point entirely, Tracey. And not to talk behind Malleus' back (natch he's watchlisted this page - and you will raise yr head above the parapet, Malleus!), while it's clear to me in my very short time here that he's a fantastic contributor to mainspace (indeed one of the very best), and I at first kinda enjoyed his sarcasm and (brutal) honesty on various talk pages where i keep seeing the name, I can't help but wonder (out loud now) whether he talks to people like that in real-life? Do you Malleus? Hillbillyholiday ^talk 11:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the accuracy of the statistic, we should be careful about misrepresenting it straightforwardly as an achievement. The growth in personal wealth under Thatcher will be attributable in large part to house price inflation. That's a success in some sense, but perhaps not when you consider what happened to house prices shortly after she left office (for the benefit of an international audience, they tumbled and many people were left with negative wealth). So, "Thatcher presided over an 80% increase in personal wealth" could be one spin. "Thatcher presided over a dangerous economic bubble" would be another. Formerip (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Awww you stopped the indent chain! I've already changed the quote, unless it's been reverted. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 11:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

To flog a dead horse(meat burger) on this topic, it would doubtlessly be the Tory party that first misrepresented this, and other statistics. The Gilmour quote leaves you under no illusions that it's at least fudged or whatever, the source is sweet really, once read it colours all judgement on Tory claims with figures. But it's hardly a newsflash, I remember it occurring to me that politicians were liars when I was four years old. A general suggestion is to be extra careful with stats even when quoted by good sources, they are so easy to misrepresent and we all know what percentage of statistics are made up! Hillbillyholiday ^talk 11:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

From what I can see in the Google Books preview, the Gilmore quote was not made in reference to the 80% statistic that we are discussing, so combining the two in the suggested way seems a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. Hardly a neutral party to quote either, given he was pulled from Thatcher's cabinet and opposed many of her policies Jebus989^✰ 12:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, point taken here, the source of course is still perfectly valid, but a break in the sentence easily sorts the synthesis. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 12:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Gilmour was specifically talking about low-income families/housholds and noting that the method of publishing data had changed, making comparison difficult (possibly deliberately). To extrapolate to the position that all statistics from all sources about the Thatcher government are suspect is wholly invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.109.87 (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

We cannot mix unrelated sources like this. --John (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree, and splitting a sentence with a full-stop does not act as a magic wand.

I don't see any particular reason to doubt the statistic. But I think it is seriously wrong to just present an attention-grabbing number like this out of context. Formerip (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm gonna bring any further edits i think of making here first from now on, let consensus be reached by the far more experienced editors, and maybe let them add what they think necessary. I keep getting caught in edit-conflicts when i try (even here). I was going to replace it with the following (admittedly, i previously mangled the wording of the quote which is unforgivable really) any takers?:

"However, some(?) of the figures concerned with wealth, given are open to debate(?). as The Health minister under Thatcher Sir Ian Gilmour has noted stated: "Measuring poverty in the Thatcher era is difficult because of the inadequate, and sometimes deliberately misleading obfuscation, of government figures." Hillbillyholiday ^talk 12:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Its too strong a statement to be supported by a single source, especially when other sources cast doubt on it. I suggest we delete it, the stuff on share ownership is not controversial and can stay ----Snowded ^TALK 12:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

this book is on 'British theatre' mentions 80%. But from what i can gather, it quotes Gilmour. I'm gonna bow out of this one now for a bit folks! Hillbillyholiday ^talk 12:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The Gilmour source doesn't even deal with the 80% claim. You can't use your own interpretation of one source to dismiss a second source on a different issue. Unless you have a source that shows that personal wealth (or whatever he is actually measuring) infact did not rise by 80%, there are no grounds to delete the passage.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Putting it there is using Wikipedia's voice to support a disputed claim. There are also weight issues. Maybe I should hunt down all the sourced comments about the poverty she created and add them in as well? It makes a nonsense of things. The stuff on share holding and council houses make the point well enough ----Snowded ^TALK 13:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) That book, on a different subject, mentions it in passing but itself gives no reference for the information. I support leaving it out unless and until a better source can be found. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• The Marr source and the data it supports have passed peer review. We will not be removing it to pander for recentism. If there are reliable sources which contradict Marr's assertion, please bring them here and we can discuss them. --John (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The book is not a peer-reviewed source, but I think that misses the point.

It's a statistic which, presented out of context and without explanation, will tend to mislead the reader. It's an NPOV issue.

Firstly, many readers will think that the statistic means people were 80% wealthier in the sense that they had 80% more money to splash around. But the figure for that would be the increase in disposable income (if anyone can find that - in real terms - I wouldn't object to it going in the article).

Secondly, readers will assume that an 80% increase in personal wealth must be a good thing, but that isn't necessarily so. It's part of a broader picture. We should try to paint the whole picture, not just the detail that looks nicest. Formerip (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything ForerIP just said. Completely.Jasonnewyork (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• The Marr material is immediately followed by "Thatcher's premiership was also marked by high unemployment and social unrest,[239] and many critics on the Left of the political spectrum fault her economic policies for the unemployment level; many of the areas affected by high unemployment as well as her monetarist economic policies have still not fully recovered and are blighted by social problems such as drug abuse and family breakdown.[240]" which provides balance. To remove the positive while leaving only the negative would be to damage the carefully honed NPOV of this article. I will not permit that to happen. --John (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would provide balance of a sort, but not the right sort, because it brings balance without clarity.

If we could source a statement such as "Economic policy under Thatcher led to an 80% increase in personal wealth, but this was largely supported by a housing boom which sowed the seeds of future economic decline", then I would describe that as balanced. Formerip (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

How is adding 'A housing boom which sowed the seeds of future economic decline' balanced? That's some dubious biased POV shiz going on there.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*2 The simple statement "Total personal wealth rose by 80 per cent." is ambiguous. If sourced fine, include it, but it would be preferable to qualify it, for example "Total personal wealth as measured by x,y,z rose by 80 per cent." Otherwise it is a rather abstract statement lacking readership clarity. Leaky Caldron 13:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, someone feel free to tell me to piss off, I just can't bloody leave! IMO John is absolutely right to leave the quote there until someone can directly challenge it for the reasons he stated, please note, i didn't delete John's reference. Clearly, I was a bit hasty in my earlier edits and misrepresented the Gilmour quote (lesson learnt!) - Having said that, I think the Gilmour quote should be in there (not necessarily next to the 80% bit) as a possible counterbalance. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 13:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Per Leaky Caldron and FormerIP. We should not be including facts that are subject to various interpretations, or difficulties of understanding, even when they are set out that way in reliable sources. Any reasonable reader would read the statement about the increase in personal wealth and say "What does that mean?" If it can't be explained, either from the Marr source or from other sources, it should be left out. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Concur----Snowded ^TALK 14:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is the Marr source [21] for those who do not have it. WWGB (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be really, really helpful if someone who has the book (yes, I know I can get it from the library, but to save time) could give the precise quote from Marr's book. Does he leave it as baldly unexplained as the summary suggests? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The proportion of adults holding shares rose from 7 per cent when Labour left office to 25 per cent when Thatcher did. Thanks to the "right to buy" policy, more than a million families purchased their council houses, repainting and refurbishing them and watching their value shoot up, particularly since they had been sold them at a discount of between 33 and 50 percent. The proportion of owner-occupied homes rose from 55 per cent of the total in 1979 to 67 per cent a decade later. And people did indeed become much wealthier, overall, during the Tory years. In real terms, total personal wealth rose by 80 per cent in the eighties, entirely changing the terms of trade of ordinary politics. Old Labour was killed off not in the Commons but in the shopping centre and the estate agents' office.

--John (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

An increase of 80% is entirely believable, and I'm not sure why some people think it is not. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but part of the issue is how meaningful and interpretable it is if it is just stuck out there on its own.

By way of comparison, wages in the Soviet Union increased dramatically in 1988 and 1989 (8% and 13% according to this source). That sounds like a good thing, but you can probably guess that it doesn't tell the whole story. Formerip (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

80% of what? Define "personal wealth". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? --John (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Assuming this is a serious question for a moment, here is a basic description. This is elementary stuff, Ghmyrtle. --John (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)Yes, but your latest edit is quite a helpful elaboration. Thank you. Why be obnoxious when you can be collaborative?Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

PS: To quote that article, "What is and is not personal wealth seems very straightforward, but it can be a surprisingly complicated matter". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

As it relates to companies being treated as individuals. Personal wealth is fairly simple; as the article says, it's liquid assets (cash, bank balances etc) + value of assets - debts. I apologise for being obnoxious; it was a lot of work to get this article into decent shape and I am not enjoying having to defend it against (no offence) everybody and their dog who suddenly want to turn it into a "kill the witch" party without even having read the sources. --John (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's about "kill the witch", John. It's a particular figure that seems to have been picked on the basis of sounding good, rather than conveying useful information. We could measure the short-term success of the economic policies of the 80s by looking at GDP or average incomes, for example, which would also show a success. But the personal wealth figure is misleading. Formerip (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Personal wealth is a redlink??!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don;t think the quote really supports a blank statement on personal wealth, it needs a lot of qualifications to make it understandable. For this sort of thing you really need a proper academic text not a journalist ----Snowded ^TALK 16:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to bring your better sources to the table. --John (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Its the person inserting material who needs a source John. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. That's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&diff=550022108&oldid=550021324 two more bad edits right there. The first is referenced in the body of the article; we don't need to repeat the reference in the lead as we assume (wrongly?) that readers and editors will read the whole article. The second distorts the source; Marr does not explicitly make this connection. I'm walking away for a few minutes as this is making me too angry. Please don't completely fuck the article up in my absence. At least read the sources, or find better ones, rather than pretending they say what you want them to say. --John (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Fwiw, I empathize, but don't quite fully sympathize with you John, you correctly advized me to wait until all the hoo-hah died down in our discussion elsewhere. I've found it is easier said than done (walking away, that is) but you definitely have my respect for keeping going on the Thatcher mainspace (for how long now is it 'months' or 'years'?) Hillbillyholiday ^talk 16:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The added material above still does not qualify the 80% claim. While share ownership and council house ownership would be obvious factors it isn't implied that they were the cause of the 80% increase. What is needed is Marr's source. As a factual claim it is poorly written and unclear since the definition of personal wealth is not universally standard. Leaky Caldron 16:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree I think it should be removed until properly sourced, and Marr is not good enough and I think, looking at the discussion above, that this is the consensus. However lets see if John has calmed down when he returns. Feeling angry does not justify accusing experienced editors of fucking up an article just because they disagree with you ----Snowded ^TALK 16:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Just think. Who do you think generates data of this type? Mr Stephen (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Like probably everyone here, i've got better things to do both here, and in real-life, than quibbling endlessly about one small sentence - can it be that hard for all you vastly experienced editors to reach Wikipedia:Consensus here and quickly move on? I've offered my opinion, there must be a way to incorporate John's source with a brief qualifier on the accuracy of said stat, without upsetting too many here? I reckon future historians will come to this very talk page when they want to study reaction to Thatcher's passing - so fix-up look-sharp everyone! Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, please could editors take a look at this page [22], which explains what I have been trying to get at better than I've been able to. About halfway down, under the heading "The housing boom" there's a couple of graphs and some text. It tells us that "This boom in house prices caused a rise in household wealth and increased confidence". In other words, there is a relationship between house prices and personal wealth. In fact, you can see from figure 4 in this pdf that residential property is by far the biggest component of personal wealth in the UK. So, when house prices go up, so will personal wealth. Now look the graph on the webpage for house price inflation. You can see it is as high as 30% annually, which helps to explain the 80% growth in personal wealth for the decade. But look how it falls afterwards into negative territory. What we are looking at is a housing bubble inflating and bursting. So, the growth in personal wealth, while it is certainly a sign of a strong economy, is also a sign of an economy going wrong. The problem is that just pulling out the 80% figure without elaboration fails to tell us the whole story. Formerip (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice research. That's really the point here. Plopping in "80% growth of total wealth" is such a misleading and intentionally skewed POV data point, and your commentary highlights that point exactly. This statistic should be removed based on NPOV.Jasonnewyork (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Dating of main image on article

If Wikipedia aspires to be complete in details, I think the picture used for the sidebar should be dated and attributed. There are many public images of such a public person, and it would be appropriate to have them dated. I think the image in question must be an Official Portrait, but maybe post-premiership, so maybe there should be a caption with a link to an article about the tradition of official portraiture. Just a thought.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.59.240 (talk • contribs) 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, but the photo was provided by the Margaret Thatcher Foundation, without any details about the date, photographer or original purpose. Formerip (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Economic recovery and 1983 election victory

Hi. I was about to remove the suggestion in the lead that 'economic recovery' and the Falklands war led to a resurgence of support that led to the election victory in 1983 - but another editor beat me to to it. I've checked this out here [23] and it is clear that immediately prior to the Falklands War in April 1982, Conservative support remained in the low 30's but by the end of April it had reached 43%, going on to hit 51% in May. That clearly demonstrates that the Falklands War was associated with a resurgence of support. There is no evidence of any 'resurgence of support' any time prior to this that could be attributed to 'economic recovery'. This of course is original research - but without clear sourcing to support the retention of 'economic recovery' as being responsible for a resurgence of support for the Conservatives prior to the 1983 election, it should clearly stay removed. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You'd need to actually read the article and you'd see where it was referenced later on. We don't normally need to repeat refs in the lead. Maybe we should. Ho-hum. --John (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I think there shoould be more on her almost going the way of Jeanne Shattock too? Basket _Feudalist 16:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, highly controversial articles, e.g. Evolution, Intelligent design, tend to have cited leads. Thatcher is divisive, but not that divisive. Why don't we just add a big comment at the top explaining that the lead summarises the article, and that sources for all claims should be found in the article text, but to feel free to challenge anything that isn't expanded on later? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd want to see the text as well on 'economic recovery' can you pull out the text you are relying on please ----Snowded ^TALK 17:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The citation appears to be Sanders, David; Ward, Hugh; Marsh, David (July 1987). "Government Popularity and the Falklands War: A Reassessment". British Journal of Political Science 17 (3): 28. The abstract supports the claim, but, coming from a science-editing background, I'm dubious of using a single article which admits to having conclusions differing from the normally-agreed upon ones to make statements of uncontested fact. Do we have anything else that reaches these conclusions? r, failing that, is there evidence that this article achieved widespread acceptance? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC) (ec):Thanks, reading the abstract it makes it clear it is taking a contrarian view so I don't think we can depend on it. It cites other studies that come to different conclusions and heavily qualifies its conclusions. I'll read it at more leisure later but I don't think its sufficient to support the proposed text. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

And, checking what cites it, there appear to be a few citations that primarily state it's wrong, e.g. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3276788 Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)