Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Her mother's lineage

This article claims that Beatrice Roberts was descended from some noble families, as well as the Barons Brownlow and Earls of Kilmorey. However reading John Campbell's Margaret Thatcher: The Iron Lady I see this:

Her [Thatcher] regal manner gave rise to the fantasy among some of her more besotted admirers that she was not a Grantham grocer's daughter at all, but actually came of aristocratic stock, her grandmother having supposedly been seduced by one of the Cust family while working as a housemaid at Belton House. There is no evidence for this at all: it is pure snobbery, a version of the Cinderella fairy-tale embraced by romantics who thought her real origins too mundane for their princess. - p. 476.

--Johnbull 16:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Dumpy and dull, she felt overshadowed by her more glamorous brother, whom she believed was always her mother's favourite. While her mother pursued her political career and Denis was involved in corporate life, Carol was raised by nannies and teachers at St Paul's boarding school."Quote from The Scotsman which I can't enter at the moment due to a spam blocker.

Part of "Family life" section removed

In the family life section I encountered the following:

Margaret Thatcher has been accused of Hypocrisy and Consistency|inconsistency over family values and other issues.

I've removed it for 3 reasons: 1) It is not enough to put a reference next to a statement, for the statement to be useful. Some background or a short summary of what was found in the reference should be included. 2) "..and other issues" is too general and needs to be backed up or removed. 3) (most important) The reference (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200310/ai_n9331346) is to an article, consisting of opinions, assumptions and speculations, not fact.

Citation for argentine ship paragraph?

The sinking of the Argentine Cruiser, the General Belgrano, has been described as a war crime. The vessel was heading away from a military exclusion zone when it was sunk by a British submarine, resulting in the loss of 323 lives. The explanation given by Margaret Thatcher at the time was incoherent and her part in the atrocity has never been fully examined or admitted.

I think I need to see a cite on this one. Described by who? I agree with the factual middle sentence, supported by the information in ARA General Belgrano. --Syrthiss 20:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Weasle words and not NPOV may need editing

Calling the Labour Party "stubbornly" Anti-nuclear is weasely (imho). The part stating, "Thatcher was committed to reducing the power of the trade unions but, unlike the Heath government, adopted a strategy of incremental change rather than a single Act. Several unions launched strikes that were wholly or partly aimed at damaging her politically." could eaily be rewritten that "Thatcher tried to wholly or partically damaging the trade unions politically but unlike the Heath government, adopted a strategy of incremental change rather than a single Act. Several unions launched strikes that were wholly or partly aimed at preserving workers' rights).

Finally, the lines from Sowing the Seeds of Love (Tears for Fears) refer to Thatcher as follows: "Politician Granny with your high ideals Have you no idea how the majority feels". Candy 20:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That opinionated, ignorant and offensive statement remained until I re-wrote it a few days ago on my first reading of the entry. How did it last so long, particularly considering that the above was written in March and my alterations were made in October? To suggest that the seven MILLION people who went on strike in that four-year period did it primarily (or even secondarily) to smear the reputation of a politician is actually illegal: it is likely to "incite civil disturbances", uses language that is likely to cause offence,(!) and more seriously, could actually be libellous if a Union managed to prove the claims were perceived as relating to them and have therefore suffered damage to their reputation.

I personally thought it referred to the miners on first reading - they are the first union that springs to mind when talking about early 80's strike actions. If others make the same subliminal assertion, it's sufficiently worrying enough to consider deleting even the history of it? Views?

• Luckily*, the large number of diff. unions striking through this time (only in many cases to still lose their jobs, their rights AND their unions: Mineworkers; Cycle-Makers; Teachers; Transport and General workers; Shopworkers'; Firemen's; Electricians; Printers; Journalists; Fishermen's; Farmers'; Postal workers'; Bus drivers',Train Drivers, Railway workers and Air-traffic controllers; Cooks, Dinner-ladies', Landlord's (Licensed Victuallers) and Brewers... (etc) Unions all took industrial action through this time (not all went out on Strike but majority did); which may indemnify against liability!

Anyhow, I've re-done the section (dunno why it just shows my IP; I'm sure I was logged in when I made the alterations) and can now read it without fear of an impending stress-induced coronary! Codeye 02:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words and POV is right!

Weasel words and POV is putting it mildly! This article is so bloated with POV, sloppy writing and flaky or non-existent references, that I can't believe it's a featured article. I've pared the monster down from 75K(!) to under 48K. (see Article size) And I've tried to remove as much polemic and POV as I could, but there's still lots remaining. This is not about lengthy analysis or biography. This is an encyclopædia article. Please save brilliant insights or rumor or minutiae or school papers for another venue. If people insist on adding their two bob, please note that they must be verifiable, i.e. citations! J M Rice 18:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Significant amounts of info removed May 22

As of this edit on 22 May, a lot of information was removed from the article. Someone may be interested in going through to make sure these removals are acceptable, since they were not discussed. --tomf688 (talk - email) 15:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The post just above yours by User:J M Rice explains why he made significant edits to this article. It was too big, and still is. Articles should be no longer than 32KB yet this is still 48KB.--Johnbull 15:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

IIRC the limit is a left over from the days when technical limitations meant that articles had to be small. PMA 19:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no limit on article length, since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Information should not be removed with the simple reason that the article is "too long", but instead divided into subarticles. I have not thoroughly read through the information removed, but it would seem to me that the work of a lot of editors has been removed without much consideration. --tomf688 (talk - email) 18:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, Johnbull, please note this quotation on the page you linked to above: "Do not take precipitous action the very instant an article exceeds 32 KB. There is no need for haste. Discuss the overall topic structure with other editors. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles and, if so, how best to organize them. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information." --tomf688 (talk - email) 18:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

tomf688, please note that some of the information removed (which you admit you haven't read through to see what it was...) was duplicated at the beginning of the article and was not even about Thatcher (e.g. an irrelevant discourse on the Coventry Four). Basically the whole article was put into six paragraphs at the beginning and then the information was repeated throughout the article. Perhaps if you're passionate about the information that was removed you could read through the page history and re-add it to the article?--Johnbull 19:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm merely pointing out that your comment above that "articles should be no longer than 32kb" is not correct. If the information was obviously redundant, however, then it is fine to remove. --tomf688 (talk - email) 18:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No criticism section

No criticisms section? I don't get it... --UVnet 04:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher, like Ronald Reagan, was the personification of perfection and thus shall she be kept by her partisans. Did you expect real WP:NPOV editing on hot political articles? ;-)

Atlant 13:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher, alongside being the most evil woman in the world, was also loved and often worshipped by many soft-headed and gullible people. It's only natural, therefore, that her entry should reflect both sides of the story! lol Lawsonrob (talk • contribs) .

Fellow of The Royal Society?

I can't see any explicit mention as to how/why she became a member. I never saw her as being in the same scientific league as Hawking or Dawkins, so it'd be interesting to know how she became a member.213.122.31.29 19:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Typical Wiki presentation

I just love how pretty much every Wiki article on prominent perceived "conservative" politicians characterizes each as "polarizing" and "controversial", while every prominent politician on the left is "beloved" and "revered". This article is no different, with far too much emphasis on the negative interpretations. Half the article is on "Why she was controversial," with only a veneer of balance. NPOV should be more than a figleaf.71.199.206.213 19:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice assertion, 71.199.206.213. Please now list at least six Wiki articles on "conservative" politicians who you say are thus maligned, and another six "on the left" who are contrarily revered and beloved. If you have difficulty doing this, maybe your premise is (just slightly) exaggerated!Phase4 20:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This article shouldn't be featured. Just look at the "Legacy" section, what a mess with unreferenced information. The whole article just seems POV to me, written by people who obviously reviles Thatcher.

Brighton Hotel Bombing

There is contradictory information between this article and the Brighton hotel bombing article. This article claims Thatcher was saved because she was in the bathroom when the bomb went off, and thus avoided the bomb blast. The Brighton hotel bombing article says she wasn't in the bathroom, and that the blast "shredded through her bathroom". At least one of these accounts has to be wrong. Can someone find out what really happened? -- 219.89.134.48 09:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that [1] is a relevent source on this (which I suspect it is) then the extract from her diaries:

"At 2.50am Robin Butler asked me to look at one last official paper - it was about the Liverpool Garden Festival. I gave Robin my view and he began to put away the papers. At 2.54am a loud thud shook the room. There were a few seconds' silence and then there was a second slightly different noise, in fact created by falling masonry. I knew immediately that it was a bomb - perhaps two bombs, a large followed by a smaller device - but at this stage I did not know that the explosion had taken place inside the hotel. Glass from the windows of my sitting room was strewn across the carpet. But I thought that it might be a car bomb outside. ... The adjoining bathroom was more severely damaged, though the worst I would have suffered had I been in there were minor cuts. Those who had sought to kill me had placed the bomb in the wrong place."

From this I think it is clear that

1. margaret Thatcher had not been in the bathroom at the time (unless she was having her conversation with Robin Butler there ... which I seriously doubt but you never know) and that

2. in her opinion, if she had been she would only have minor cuts.

Candy 15:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I made some edits to the main page about this. I removed phrases like "narrowly escaped", remove the speculation that she might have died when in the bathroom (she clearly didn't consider that herself) and removed the statement the bathroom "suffered extensive damage" which is not supported (she herself claimed the "adjoining bathroom was more severely damaged" which is a comparative but without any description of what the actual damage was so it's hard to support the term "extensive damage").

Candy 10:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV in very first paragraph.

"Mrs Thatcher is the most successful of British Prime Ministers, many still wish she was still the PM today, especially those in Welsh Coal Mining Communities, who in everyone's opinion she treated most suitabily!"

IMHO this entire sentence (including its misspelling) should be stricken. Her treatment of Welsh miners, and their reaction, should be part of the body of the article.

--69.125.213.75 18:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's somebody taking the pee. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lawsonrob (talk • contribs) .

Exactly, it was some petty vandalism that was reverted around 90 seconds after it was put there. Gwernol 16:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Head of Political Parties

Was Margaret Beckett not also (acting) head of the opposition between John Smith's death and Tony Blair's election?

Pictures

Again, what has happened to the pictures?. There used to be a very good collection on this page. Now there are not enough; an artcle of this size requires more pictures.

British trade unionist

I see Ms. Thatcher has been included in the Category:British trade unionists. Is it just me, or is that ... uh... perhaps misplaced?--Bookandcoffee 16:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Whilst working as a research chemist she was a member of the Association of Scientific Workers.--Johnbull 16:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Did she actively participate in it, though? The category requires something more than simple membership. -- Arwel (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well she joined, other than that I don't know. I thought that as a British trade unionist she fitted the category "British trade unionists".--Johnbull 17:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the category is generally about leaders in the trade union movement or people active in promoting or advancing a unionist agenda. I'm from across the pond, but I don't recall Thatcher in that particular light. :)--Bookandcoffee 17:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't sound very NPOV to me if that's the case; that only British trade unionists with particular political opinions can be included in the British trade unionists category. Norman Tebbit is also in the category.--Johnbull 17:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how "NPOV" comes into play here. It would be pointless to list every person in Wikipedia as a unionist simply because they worked in a union shop at some point in their career. There has to be a definition for the category - that's not POV, that's just what a category is... --Bookandcoffee 17:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the category. I don't think the statement "Margaret Thatcher is a trade unionist." is something that you're going to hear very often :), so I think the category is not appropriate.--Bookandcoffee 20:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not assuming that only Labour supporters can be active trade unionists, but to be in the category they should be active. When I was on the TSSA Executive Committee, one of my colleagues was a Liberal Democrat councillor, and I knew of some (a few!) Conservatives who were branch delegates at Annual Conference. -- Arwel (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

'Random' quotes

Removing these quotes was not done because they were inappropriate, illegitimate or random but because they show Thatcher in a slightly different light to your own POV. A truly NPOV article would show many facets of the woman and not just a gooey saccharine view that eulogises her. The quotes are authentic and are going back. thanks Peter morrell 06:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. There is no authentic source for the first quotation; no record of her saying it and it is probably invented. The second "no such thing as society" quote is already added later on. The article already has lots and lots of criticisms of Thatcher and I really can't see any "gooey saccharine" views of her in the article.--Johnbull 20:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh, you did not read the links very closely then did you? It is all in the official record of Parliamentary business, called Hansard. It is also quoted here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1228177,00.html "Bus deregulation also took place under the Conservatives, following the passage of the Transport Act 1985. It had a bad effect on my town but a worse effect on many other communities where they were not able to keep the public transport network in public ownership. Bus journeys fell by 25 per cent. in that period; no wonder congestion has risen. There were cuts in spending on road maintenance in the order of some 13 per cent. We had 18 years of transport under the Conservatives. They were anti-car, anti-train and anti-bus. That just about gives them a full house." [2]

"The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) said that the Conservatives had no policy on buses, but that is hardly surprising in view of the most famous quote of all time about the buses, delivered by Margaret Thatcher when the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was working in Conservative central office as her speech writer. This is what she said in 1986: "A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure"...Was the hon. Gentleman responsible for writing that?" [3] So the quotes is actually not only valid but also highly pertinent to her transport policies. sorry I forgot to sign it! Peter morrell 16:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to read your sources more closely or perhaps you think a Liberal Democrat MP is somehow a credible source for mythological quotes from a Tory PM; if so, I'm afraid you have poor judgement and an uncritical eye for sources. Opposing MPs can make up all manner of things about a politician from a rival political party, it does not make them true. The quote is not valid.--Johnbull 20:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This quote was attributed to Mrs Thatcher by Don Foster, MP for Bath. He says that "the exact time and place of the original speech I have not been able to identify, but my guess is that it is in the 1986 Hansards, which are not online." [4] Therefore, regardless of your POV, the true factual accuracy (or otherwise) of this quote cannot be resolved until someone searches the 1986 Hansard. So there the matter must rest. Peter morrell 10:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No. In fact all of Thatcher's remarks and speeches in the House of Commons—including 1986—are online at http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/default.asp, copies of the Hansard reports. There is record of her making the quote in Hansard and therefore the LibDem MP, and you, are wrong. Also, from the link you posted, you attribute to Don Foster the remark starting "the exact time and place of the original speech..." when in fact that remark was posted by funtrivia.com's user Brainyblonde, quoting Wikipedia's User:Diderot.--Johnbull 18:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Johnbull said: "There is record of her making the quote in Hansard and therefore the LibDem MP, and you, are wrong." what on earth is this sentence supposed to mean? Peter morrell 19:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC) "

I meant there is no record of it.--Johnbull 19:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

So in fact what you are saying is that this sentence was an error on your part? thank you. Peter morrell 20:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that I made a mistake in my grammar. I notice you haven't tried to defend the validity of the quote since I proved it is mythological. The matter is settled.--Johnbull 20:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

LOLOL!!!!

I think this post deserves a Handbags At Dawn match review:

Johnbull ruled from the start in this hugely enjoyable 3rd Round battle, fighting hard and consistantly pushing his simple but factual message home. Morrell was working well in the early part of the match, showing considerable flair in defensive positions and standing up well to the infinitely more skilled and substantial messages of his opponent. Mid-way through the game, the cracks really began to appear for Morello, who found himself pushed completely onto the back foot by the tenacious Johnbull's skilful, highly-tactical syle. Constant, sensical and patient contributions by Johnbull eventually reduced poor Peter to the level of pedantic, childish insults; this unprofessional display destroying his earlier hard work and any credibility he may once have had in the field of Impartial Gatekeeping.

Johnbull finished his impressive performance strongly, but interestingly disagreed with himself inadvertantly AND used bad grammar whilst apologising for the poor grammar of his previous entry. These errors went completely un-noticed and unpunished by Morello, who was apparently too busy picking for nits to notice the plank protruding from his eye - we all sincerely wish him good luck in regaining the form he found earlier in the competition, and hope his recovery is swift.

This is intended with no malice whatsoever to anyone, it's just a bit of fun to hopefully pass on the delight I took from reading your posts to others. I sincerely hope both Johnbull and Peter have no objections to this post, apologies if I have offended.

ps What you were "stating" is that you made a mistake "with" your grammar, or "made a grammatical error." Regarding the final post, the value of the said quote is not mythological, as you lead us to believe in your incorrectly structured sentence. It is the quote itself that you asserted was mythological.

TONGUE firmly tucked in cheek! 82.21.203.69 04:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC) ABOVE actually written by me, don't know why it hasn't registered as I was logged in at time of writing. Codeye 04:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Lady Margaret Thatcher

Baroness Thatcher is entitled to the title "Lady" before her name as she is a Lady of the Order of the Garter.

Incorrect, she is a life peer, and therefore the Baroness Thatcher, her membership of the Order of the Garter as a Lady Companion entitled her to the postnominals LG. If however she was not a Baroness then she would be entitled to the style "Lady Margaret Thatcher LG". --Jason Hughes 10:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Longest since

They said she is the longest PM since Lord Liverpool or whatever but dont you mean putt the younger who was PM from 1783-1802 or so and then again for another term? V.C. - SATURDAY OCT 14 11:26 EST.

You're right, Pitt the Younger was PM for longer, but Lord Liverpool was more recent (1812-1827); as such, Thatcher is the longest serving PM since Lord Liverpool. Walton monarchist89 16:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture!!

Is there no decent headline pic for thatcher? The current one is bad! wheres the original one gone?--Ruddyell 12:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't you put a picture that has to do with the period she governed? - copernicus

Why Picture Removed

The picture was removed as it had infringed copyright laws. Thank you. User:That1|That1]]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.182.240 (talk • contribs)

Dear Mr./Mrs. err... "That1|That1]]", could you please be so gracious as to inform us to the whereabouts of this infringement. Thank you so much.

Yours truly not yours,

Van helsing 19:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question, you may wish to read the fair use guideline and copyright policy, which state that copyrighted images should not be used where a free equivalent is available. Though the free image that had been used might not be the most appealing, replacing it with a copyrighted image is still a breach of the fair use policy and, by extension, a potential breach of US copyright law. Road Wizard 01:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

To help you in selecting a free alternative, this link will take you to a collection of free to use images of Margaret Thatcher at Wikimedia Commons. Road Wizard 01:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Damn, you’re so right of course; I didn’t pay enough attention there. Then, of the suggested free images (thanks for the link), I would like to suggest to use (Image:Thatcher-loc.jpg). It certainly gives me a higher that-was-Thatcher kind of feel (see now it’s also used on some other laguages).--Van helsing 08:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Strike that, already used in the article; not awake yet I suppose.--Van helsing 08:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that the commons category I linked to above is now empty, and the free images have now all been moved to here. It would also appear that someone has uploaded another image of questionable copyright status. I have left a message on its talk page here, if someone knows that the copyright has been waived for this image, please provide evidence before orphanbot deletes it. As a final point, editors may be interested in looking at this old page version from the middle of October which made use of the image suggested by Van Helsing. Perhaps those that are unsatisfied with the latest free picture would be satisfied with a return to the old one? Road Wizard 00:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The Greatest Modern PM

Just like to state that this great lady is the greatest ever PM in living MEMORY, she made Britain Great again. Thank you mam. Englandtillidie 18:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Opinions obviously vary. But I'm sure you've read WP:NPOV, right? ...So you understand that things that are okay to say on "talk" pages may not be okay for the articles.

Atlant 18:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ignore him. He's a block evading sockpuppet troll (Englandtillidie, I mean, not Atlant). The JPS^{talk to me} 18:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

ATLANT, thanks for the advice, obviously its my opinion so i would never put it on the main page. Cheers THEJPS give me a break, i am allowed an opinion. She was the greatest PM in the 20th century and in the top 3 of all time. I dont like the name calling, bit immatureDaveegan06 01:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)81.145.242.37 01:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Incidentally I completely agree with you. Walton monarchist89 10:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In popular culture

Not one of these items was referenced. plerase feel free to readd with a source for any of them, SqueakBox 17:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Somebody has clearly been vandalizing this page. There is a comment thatt "she likes to strangle baby squirrels for fun" for example, that I cannot seem to figure out how to remove from the article as it does not show up on the edit page.

There are no current references to squirrels on the page. An anonymous vandal inserted squirrels into a paragraph title at 2040 tonight - 2 hours before your comment - and it was removed at 2107. You may have been looking at a cached version of the page. -- Arwel (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)