Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Racepacket (talk | contribs) at 13:53, 21 January 2011 (Passed GA). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

{

Margaret Thatcher has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 21, 2011.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

	Margaret Thatcher is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	Margaret Thatcher has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
[REDACTED]	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 18, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 9, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted July 24, 2006 Featured article review Kept July 11, 2007 Featured article review Demoted November 29, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed December 23, 2008 Good article nominee Listed January 12, 2009 Peer review Reviewed January 9, 2011 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Template:Controversial (politics)

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cold War High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Peerage and Baronetage / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. England High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics of the United Kingdom Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Lincolnshire Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lincolnshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lincolnshire on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LincolnshireWikipedia:WikiProject LincolnshireTemplate:WikiProject LincolnshireLincolnshire Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. University of Oxford Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Naomi Alderman (Tuesday 7 April 2009). "Encarta's failure is no tragedy:Misplaced Pages has succeeded where Microsoft's Encarta failed, and seems to be a reversal of the 'tragedy of the commons'". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Stephen Foley (Tuesday, 3 February 2009). "So is Misplaced Pages cracking up?:It was a utopian vision: an encyclopedia for the people, by the people. But eight years on, Misplaced Pages is plagued by endless hoaxes, and lurches from one cash crisis to another. Will it become a footnote in the history of the web?". The Independent. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Template:FAOL

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on May 4, 2004, October 12, 2004, May 4, 2007, May 4, 2008, and May 4, 2009.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Margaret Thatcher article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Tag restored

I have once again restored the tag to this article. See Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 15#Hang on, Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 15#Unresolved Issues, Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 13#Addressing some of the issues in the article and the talk page discussions and Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 12#Ridiculously biased article fully justify the tag remaining until the article meets WP:NPOV. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ (undated - May 12, 2010)

Per the above, and the recent attempts to removed the POV tag, the issues raised by Hackney clearly justify a tag, and editors who wish the tag to be removed should address the issues raised rather than sidestep the dispute by ignoring it and then removing the tag with the bogus claim that the debate is "stale". This is very bad form. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT applies. If you have changes you wish to make, go ahead and make them, or at least bring them up for discussion. Restoring a dispute tag, claiming it hasn't been "settled," without raising any points of discussion, is a very passive-aggressive tactic. Ray 03:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Try reading what he said, the first part says "Per the above". I've brought up many examples of total bias in this article, it runs deep and throughout the article. You go right ahead and fix them if you want, or you can discuss them here, but the tag is staying. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Your attitude is not constructive in the least. Do you have any proposed changes? To ask me to look into year-old archives is absurd - those discussions are stale and consensus was against changes based on those complaints. As an American without any particular knowledge or care of the subject, I find the current article's exposition to be well-written and decently neutral. The constructive thing to do is to convince me and the other editors here otherwise, rather than defacing the article with an unsightly tag without any useful suggestions for improvement. Ray 16:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with you Ray, a suggestion that the article needs rewriting or the users template has to stay on the article is not helping the article at all. If you think it is worth a template then you should also be prepared to do the work you feel is required. The statement from One night in Hackney is so vague as to be unable to be addressed at all. (apart from a complete rewrite that he agrees with) - to be a little bit specific could you place section NPOV templates in each section you think is biased and then we can attempt to address your specific problems with the wording.Off2riorob (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hackney... I would humbly suggest that you take a step back and re-evaluate your position. From what I can tell, you have strong support from the community for your NPOV claims, yet repeated requests for your recommendations for revision of the article have gone unanswered. Demanding that others do the work that you seem to be unwilling to do yourself is at best unproductive and at worst disruptive to the revision process. Repeating an opinion over and over is not the most effective way to influence others. My suggestion is to state your suggested revisions so that they can be discussed or if you wish, go ahead and make the changes as you see fit. It is obvious that you are very passionate about this topic and you certainly seem to have the most to say about it so go ahead and make your suggestions so that the discussion can move forward.--Sbarne3 (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

In the last year and a half user One night in Hackney has made five edits to the article, four of them were adding a NPOV template. User RepublicanJacobite has only ever made two edits to the article, both of them adding the template after it was removed. I have left them both a note to please come here and clearly state their problems with individual sections so that interested users can discuss their problems.Off2riorob (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

RayAYang I realise it was the last one listed, but did you actually read Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 12#Ridiculously biased article? My examples of bias are very detailed, and numerous editors, the vast majority in fact agree with my critique. I will provide quotes from the editors concerned if you want to dispute that?

The problems with the article are not limited to those examples either. The bias runs deep throughout the article, thus justifying a template at the top of the article.

For those who wish to collaborate in fixing this article, I suggest looking at the footnotes section first. As I have previously mentioned, the sourcing on this article is inadequate. Yes you can happily say "the are a reliable source", but this ignores the bigger picture. Newspapers and the BBC are repeatedly cited, whereas dedicated biographies of Thatcher (of which there are many) are rarely cited at all, when they should be the sources we are relying on most of all. This article will never be a featured article again unless that is fixed. And it is when improving the sourcing that the NPOV issues become more evident, assuming editors actually read about the events they are sourcing at the same time.

The problems with this article are too many for one editor to fix on their own. At a bare minimum, I'd suggest anyone trying to fix this article have accesss to at least four dedicated biographies of Thatcher, to ensure that they get the full picture of any particular event. Obviously it could be just as easily done by several editors having one book each and pooling information on the talk page. If there's a genuine commitment to improving this article count me in, but I'm not fixing it on my own. Removing the tag doesn't make the article meet NPOV, so are the people here interested in fixing the article or only removing the tag? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You are overly critical of the article, it is as NPOV as all our other articles,. with the same standards (unduly high) you could add a NPOV tag to all the articles on Misplaced Pages and demand it stays there until it satisfies your imaginary standards. Can you be a bit specific and tewmplate the individual sections you have got specific issues with and then we can work through them one by one. Off2riorob (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you like me to paste quotes from all the other editors involved in that discussion that show my critique was correct? At the same time, you will be welcome to provide quotes from editors that rebut each of my points, if you can? And yet again, virtually the whole article is biased meaning the template goes at the top. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No one is going to rewrite the whole article, you haven't even attempted to make a single edit to solve your worries in the last two years. Your only input to the article in the last two years is to repeatedly add the NPOV template and demand it stays there until the article is completely re written. Off2riorob (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

off2riorob you are not being particularly constructive, are you prepared to do anything other than pretend the acknowledged problems with the article don't exist and carry on about tags. Discuss improvements to the content of the article, don't keep going about tags.--Domer48_'fenian' 14:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Domer hello. I am amazed at you joining in here ..You have never edited the article or the talkpage under this name, not a single edit in your editing over three and a half years. The requirement that the article needs rewritten is totally excessive, imo the article is similar to all our typical political BLP articles, is it related to Irish content? Feel free to specifically start with pointing to a section or any content you think needs rewritten. Off2riorob (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion The tag says "see the discussion on the talk page". The problem with that it that the actual substance of the dispute is lost in an archive - and so there's no sense of what the issues are, and whether they are being addressed. Can I suggest:

1. A bullet point list of the issues is kept on this page.
2. An RFC is filled on the substantive issues
3. Discussions open on each point to address the issue, or to find whether the existing text is actually consensus
4. That we remember a minority of editors disliking text does not merit a POV tag, IF there's consensus that the current text is indeed neutral

Just some thoughts.--Scott Mac 14:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion that "it's as neutral as other articles" is no defence to specific criticisms of this article's failing to adhere to NPOV, and the vast majority of editors who posted about the original critique agreed it was an accurate critique and that the article was not neutral.--Domer48_'fenian' 14:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is as NPOV as similar articles and there is no reason to expect a higher standard from this BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't helping. Can the issues be clearly set down, so that new editors can try to break the deadlock?--Scott Mac 14:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Scott Mac that we need to make progress here rather than argue about the tag being on the article or not, and continually pointing to old discussions. Those claiming that the article is POV need to provide a detailed list of the things that need fixing, probably on a section by section basis. May be a sub page can be created here with that list on rather than clutter up the talk page, and a link to it given here or if absolutely necessary translude the details. Keith D (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

Quickly looking at this article it seems that it needs to be re-written. Here are just some of the topics that seem to be covered poorly. There is no mention of the British Nationality Act 1981 which would have implications both for the Falklands and Hong Kong, and of course immigration policy. Very little is written about what led to the Falklands conflict or the sinking of the Belgrano. The Hong Kong section is particularly short.. The section on Northern Ireland is mostly about the hunger strike, and there is no mention of the Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland. Grenada is not even mentioned. I do not think it is necessary to have criticism in the article in order to make it balanced, so long as there is no praise either. A simple chronology is acceptable, but we should mention controversies that arose. TFD (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that Thatcher is not even mentioned once in our Shoot to kill article? Was it to do with her? If it was she ought to be mentioned in our article. Strangely enough, thatcher is not even mentioned once in the British_Nationality_Act_1981[REDACTED] article either, was that something to do with her? Grenada, thatcher was against the invasion and had no part in it, did she ? http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/109427 Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with TFD. --John (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No mention is made of the Education Reform Act 1988 or anything else about education policy, public health, including policies on beef, eggs and HIV, homelessness, the Saudi arms deal, or justice policy. While Anthony Meyer's leadership challenge is mentioned, no reasons are given. TFD (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if she was big involved in those issues then comments can be added, no one is stopping that, but just because there are missing information does not make it inherently biased, just in need of some additions. Lets revert back to the featured article, nothing has changed since then.Off2riorob (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No, let's not. We don't fix problems with the current article by reverting back years. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The statement "trade union disputes, which had bedevilled the UK economy throughout the 1970s." is unsubstantiated and citation 64 which is linked to it is a reference to an article on Thatcher, which on Thatchers anti-trade union laws is itself neutral unlike this statement, rather than a critique on the economic impact of trade unionisms throughout the decade. The statement should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by The interwhat? (talk • contribs) 17:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Partial critique

This shouldn't be taken to be a comprehensive list, as I really can't be arsed going through this article with a fine tooth comb.(critique by One night in Hackney)

• - additional comments from off2riorob, I hope you don't mind me breaking up the critique in an attempt to address your issues, if you do , simply revert back. Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hillsborough Anglo-Irish Agreement

• "Later that year, Thatcher and Irish Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald established the Anglo-Irish Inter-Governmental Council, which would act as a forum for meetings between the two governments. On 15 November 1985, Thatcher and FitzGerald signed the Hillsborough Anglo-Irish Agreement; the first time a British government gave the Republic of Ireland an advisory role in the governance of Northern Ireland." Yeah, great, the first time the British government did something, Thatcher makes history!! What it doesn't say is that the signing of the agreement provoked a massive backlash from unionists in Northern Ireland, traditionally allies of the Convervative Party. The Ulster Says No rally attracted 100-200,000 people, a rally held in England with a similiar percentage of the population would be 3-6 million people, without even taking into account that the overwhelming majority of the Catholic population of Northern Ireland (35-40%) would not be attending the rally. Effigies of Thatcher were burned, there were massive riots, Thatcher's close friend Ian Gow resigned as Minister of State over the signing of the agreement, and all Unionist MPs resigned their seats in December 1985 triggering by-elections. I know that we can't go overboard with the details, but if all we're getting is a summary that Thatcher made history then it's totally unacceptable.(User:One Night In Hackney)

• - supporting cites and small write, offers please ....

• • Done. --John (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

resignation

• "The Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Margaret Thatcher, F.R.S., has informed the Queen that she does not intend to contest the second ballot of the election for leadership of the Conservative Party and intends to resign as Prime Minister as soon as a new leader of the Conservative Party has been elected… "Having consulted widely among my colleagues, I have concluded that the unity of the Party and the prospects of victory in a General Election would be better served if I stood down to enable Cabinet colleagues to enter the ballot for the leadership. I should like to thank all those in Cabinet and outside who have given me such dedicated support" Nice, very nice. You'll probably notice that the whole resignation section, or the lead, fails to mention anywhere that Thatcher was actually forced to resign by her party which is what almost every source says, and she wasn't making some benevolent gesture for the good of the party like her quote suggests.(User:One Night In Hackney)

• - We can remove this promo quote and add a comment that she was forced out, although I did see a comment about that, perhaps a little more detail about she was forced to leave - suggestions Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure there's any need to remove the quote, my point is that only including Thatcher's spin on why she resigned is biased. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Since the poll tax (introduced in 1989 in Scotland and 1990 in England and Wales) was one of the major factors contributing to Thatcher's downfall, why do we have "Moreover, in relative terms, Thatcher's personal position had remained consistently strong: a Marplan poll for the Sunday Express in October 1988 showed that Thatcher was still trusted by 61% of Britons to lead the country, compared with only 17% for Labour leader Neil Kinnock" in the article? In fact, the whole thing is jammed with opinion polls. While I think it's important to note that Thatcher's approval rating had fallen to a record low (24%, source is higher up), I really think we should do something along the lines of this source (quoted at length for ease). Aspects of British political history, 1914-1995 by Stephen J. Lee, which says "But it was also the most unpopular policy of her entire administration and it aroused the most forceful and widespread opposition. Mrs Thatcher was determined to press ahead despite warnings from colleagues in the cabinet and on the back benches, who were increasingly worried about the revelations of the public opinion polls in 1989 and 1990. These showed two disconcerting developments. One was a consistent lead for Labour, which now appeared to be well on the way to recovery. The other was the growing unpopularity of Mrs Thatcher herself. It became increasingly obvious that the Prime Minister was the main obstacle to the Conservatives winning the next general election." It then goes on to deal with Howe's resignation triggering her downfall, as in the article. Also earlier it states that Thatcher is the only prime minister in the 20th century to be removed by their party in peacetime. I'm sure there's other sources that do a similar short analysis of the opinion polls situation. The more detailed information could always be moved into Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1990, should anyone so desire but I'm not convinced that level of detail belongs anywhere. The key points for *this article*, as the source (and doubtless many others, I only quickly looked on Google Books) are the unpopularity of Thatcher, Labour's lead in polls and the Conservatives believing they couldn't win the next election with Thatcher as leader. Things like polls about her being being more trusted in a crisis than Kinnock or Conservative voters trusting her over Europe really are little more than sops in my opinion.(User:One Night In Hackney)

• "Major led the Tories to their fourth successive general election victory and Kinnock stepped down as opposition leader after nine years of ultimately unsuccessful efforts to oust the Tories and return Labour to government" While it's quite reasonable to note that Kinnock was leader of the opposition for nine years, considering he took the job in 1983 and contested general elections in 1987 and 1992, that hardly constitutes "nine years of ultimately unsuccessful efforts" does it?(User:One Night In Hackney)
  • Think the rewrite has addressed this. --John (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I have added a little about the "betrayal" and Thatcher's emotional departure, sourced from Andrew Marr's excellent A History of Modern Britain. Hope it is not too tabloidy. There is probably more in the book we could add to the Legacy section as well. --John (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

the lede

• The lead. We have "Thatcher is the only woman to have held either post ", "At the 1979 general election she became Britain's first female Prime Minister" and "She was the first woman to lead a major political party in the United Kingdom, and the first of only four women to hold any of the four great offices of state". How many times are we planning to repeat the same claim(s) in slightly different ways in the lead? There's also "tough-talking rhetoric", "unprecedented third term" and "Thatcher's tenure as Prime Minister was the longest since that of Lord Salisbury and the longest continuous period in office since Lord Liverpool in the early 19th century". All are either true or valid opinions, but the problem is the way the lead tends to focus too much on positive factoids while giving little detail about other things. The lead is also giving undue credence to Thatcher's own version of her resignation, not the one shared by virtually every reliable source going which is that she was forced to resign. "Amid a recession and high unemployment, Thatcher's popularity declined", actually record unemployment not just a relatively meaningless "high". Now on the last point you may think "well why don't you just change it?", and it's a reasonable point. Firstly editing large articles like this article causes problems on my connection, and secondly it's an excellent example of the type of subtle and hard to detect bias that is rampant throughout this article. Saying "high" when it's actually "record" is glossing over the truth and attempting to paint Thatcher in a more favourable light, which as you may have guessed by now is the problem with the article.(User:One Night In Hackney)

• - solutions ....

• Merge the three "only woman" type points into one or possibly two sentence(s), and if it is two sentences make sure they are consecutive ones. There's no need to hammer it home at three different points in the lead. The other parts are slightly more difficult to deal with. I'm not personally in favour of removing the "tough talking rhetoric" line as it explains her Iron Lady nickname. The other two are true facts, but my point is that the lead seems to spend too much time emphasising points like that while not actully covering what Thatcher did as PM in any real detail. I'm not even saying "include more negative information" (although I'm not opposed to that), I'm saying include better detail than factoids that paint Thatcher in some groundbreakingly positive light. The lead needs totally rewriting in my opinion. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Think the rewrite has addressed this, is it sufficient for NPOV? --John (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

thatchers popularity

• "Unemployment soared, and in December 1981 Thatcher's job approval rating fell to 25%, the lowest of her entire premiership, a lower rating than recorded for any previous prime minister, although she remained more popular than her party". Confidence Regained: Economics, Mrs. Thatcher and the British Voter (Helmut Norpoth, ISBN 978-0472103331, University of Michigan Press, pages 137-138) contradicts this, the two tables (Thatchers's popularity and Conservatives' popularity) shows the Conservatives' popularity never goes as low as Thatcher's 25% thus making her less popular than her party. The "lowest of her entire premiership" is either wrong or misleading also. If it means "lowest of her premiership to that point" then it's ok, but it fell even lower later on. (User:One Night In Hackney)

• - suggested corrections ...
  • Doesn't belong in article; maybe the premiership one would require this level of detail? --John (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

miners death details , possible correction req

• "Two miners, Joe Green and David Jones, were crushed to death by lorries while picketing". There's far too many sources to list, but a search of Google News or Books for 'miner "David Jones" brick' will show you that the circumstances of David Jones' death are disputed to this day, see the BBC for example as to one relatively current source that says he was struck by a brick. The Still unbowed source doesn't say he was crushed to death by a lorry, neither does the Bitter conflict source. While most sources do talk about crush injuries when talking about Jones, they are generally referring to medical reports and not to eyewitness accounts of his death. Where the lorry has come from is anyone's guess..(User:One Night In Hackney)

• - correction details ...
  • This definitely doesn't belong in the article, in my opinion. What do others think? --John (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
    • This disappeared in the rewrite. It didn't belong, no, and in general I think that in this article we ought to be switching the emphasis away from events themselves to Thatcher's impact on them, and their impact on her. Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

weasel words and truncated quote

• "The Labour leader Michael Foot was traditional Labour while Conservatives viewed Thatcher as 'their greatest electoral asset'." This could be simply put down to the source cited being highly selective in their quoting of the original source, The British general election of 1983 by Butler and Kavanagh. The source cited reads "As the 1983 general election approached, Thatcher 'came to be regarded by Conservative campaigners as their greatest electoral asset'", whereas the original reads "From being an electoral liability she came to be regarded by Conservative campaigners as their greatest electoral asset". "...the Conservatives won a landslide victory with a massive majority. This resulted in the Conservative party having an overall majority of 144 MPs", why are we using the POV "massive" majority then saying what the actual majority was in the next sentence? (User:One Night In Hackney)

• - correction - ...
  • Don't think this is present in the current version. --John (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Privatisation section - requires NPOV to content

• Privatisation section. Apparently this has been called "a crucial ingredient of Thatcherism". It is also, according to Comparative Politics: Domestic Responses to Global Challenges by Charles Hauss (and I'm sure some other sources, this isn't a disputed point), "her most controversial policy. To her supporters, she saved the British economy by brinding both inflation and unemployment under control and by creating a more dynamic private sector. To her detractors, she created new problems and exacerbated existing ones by widening the gap between rich and poor and by allowed public services to deteriorate." Yet remarkably this section is almost totally pro-Thatcher.(User:One Night In Hackney)

• - section rewrite ....

Trade unions section - NPOV re write

• Trade unions section. No mention of the opinion of mining communities about Thatcher? It's "virtually impossible to convey to outsiders just how much Thatcher is hated in the former mining communities". I'm unhappy with the positioning of the "enemy within" quote also, while it certainly belongs in the article no source I've seen is particularly clear on exactly when it was said, so I think it's misleading to include it right after her refusing to meet the union's demands. I could also go off on a tangent about how unions "demand" and employers "offer", but I think I'd better change popular usage of the terms before trying to go there... "According to the BBC, Thatcher "managed to destroy the power of the trade unions for almost a generation". What the source actually says is "Together with miners' leader Arthur Scargill, she managed to destroy the power of the trade unions for almost a generation". Of course whether destroying trade union power is a net negative or a net positive depends on your POV, but the BBC don't give her sole credit/debit for it either way. The BBC themselves make this clear with "To understand the scale of what supporters called her achievement, others call her shameful legacy", and I suggest looking at the "Legacy" section where we deal with her supporters are in favour of her impact on trade unions, yet we don't seem to have anything from her detractors about trade unions for some reason? (User:One Night In Hackney)

• - section rewrite - offers please ....

Legacy section - NPOV rewrite

• Legacy section. "Thatcher remains identified with her remarks to the reporter Douglas Keay", says who? While I'll admit the "no such thing as society" quote is one commonly associated with Thatcher, why on earth are we starting the legacy section with that particular lengthy quote, or any quote from Thatcher for that matter? "As the individualistic credo expressed above took hold of Thatcher's Britain, egalitarian concerns dwindled. Andy Beckett commented: ". I really wouldn't consider the first part to be acceptable prose, and as for the massive quote from Andy Beckett's book it's just unnecessary and hideous. I'll deal with the Scotland quote in a separate bullet point below. "Critics have regretted her influence in the abandonment of full employment, poverty reduction and a consensual civility as bedrock policy objectives", what is that actually supposed to mean? I know what it literally means, but it looks a mighty dubious sentence from where I'm sitting. Ignoring the quotes that follow it as they aren't really criticial quotes about Thatcher, all we get in the entire section for negative information is "Many recent biographers have been critical of many aspects of the Thatcher years". Well it's true, although I'd dispute it's only "recent" ones, but is that all we're getting? A measly one sentence? (User:One Night In Hackney)

• - section rewrite - offers please ....

Scottish comments - possible additions or rewrite for NPOV

• Speaking in Scotland in April 2009, before the 30th anniversary of her election as prime minister, Thatcher declared: "I regret nothing", and insisted she "was right to introduce the poll tax and to close loss-making industries to end the country's 'dependency culture'." According to the cite ("Thatcher: I did right by Scots; Thatcher: I regret nothing" Sunday Times (26 April 2009), p. 1") there may be two stories that source this but I'm not buying that. Why would the Sunday Times have two stories in the same edition covering the exact same thing, when Thatcher isn't exactly two story material these days? This is backed up by the Times website, where only the first story appears, and I can find no trace of another story with the "regret nothing" quote. So given the unlikelihood of two virtually identical stories on Thatcher appearing in the same edition and only one story appearing on the site, it's reasonable to accept that there's only one story you'll agree? Now let's examine the problems with the sentence added when compared to the source:
  • The source is ambiguous as to whether Thatcher was actually speaking in Scotland. By my reading of the story (particularly if you read it in full), she's "defending her record in Scotland", not "in Scotland defending her record".
  • The quote "I regret nothing" that has been attributed to Thatcher appears nowhere in the source.
  • The quote "she was right to introduce the poll tax and to close loss-making industries to end the country’s “dependency culture”" that has been attributed to Thatcher is actually the words of the Times. Had it been "in the words of the Sunday Times she declared etc etc" it would work, but as it is it doesn't. The words "Thatcher declared" followed by two quotes says to the reader that those were Thatcher's exact words, when they don't seem to be.
  • The alleged quotes are being used out of context. The quotes are specific to her policies in Scotland, yet this article does not make this in any way clear, and implies she's talking about the whole country.
  • As seems usual for this article, sources are being used rather selectively. The source is being used only for Thatcher giving her version of events, while ignoring any negative information in the same source. The source notes that the poll tax contributed to the collapse of the Tory party in Scotland, yet we only have Thatcher's assertion that she was right and anything negative is left out?! Same with the "thousands of job losses and the decline of many communities" that the source mentions. The source also notes she is a hate figure in Scotland, so in the coal mining communities detailed earlier she's also a hate figure in Scotland, she seems to be hated by a significant number of people according to reliable sources yet this material is absent from the article? And to summarise: as this cited source covers her negative track record with regards to Scotland then gives Thatcher right of reply by including her version of events, then it's an egregious breach of NPOV to ignore the negative track record and only include alleged quotes from Thatcher about how great she is!(User:One Night In Hackney)

• - rewrite or expansion - offers please ....

Further discussion

Now I'm sure someone will mention me using news sources while earlier criticising people for doing just that. Well there's two reasons for it, firstly for the sake of convenient discussion, and secondly to show how the existing sources are being used in biased ways. I'm sure if I had the time and energy to check the other sources used in the article I'd find similar problems with them too.

So given the many examples of bias I've identified, are other people going to chip in (as TFD has already done) and identify other problem areas with the article, or are we going to keep burying our heads in the sand and pretend this article is neutral? Being a good article doesn't make it neutral, saying it's neutral compared to other articles doesn't make it neutral, particularly since neutrality is based on what reliable sources say about the subject of an article, so unless the sources are saying the same thing the degree of neutrality must vary from one article to another. I've identified many problems, I really hope I don't have to waste my time identifying all the rest. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

More detail added, and some other comments. It seems to have gone awfully quiet round here.... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you mean but thanks for these details and I am going to choose a section to work on and I hope others will choose themselves a section also. It will take a week or two but lets try to improve the article enough that it is balanced enough to be free of the template. Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Good, I'll probably work on the Anglo-Irish Agreement section. Speaking generally regarding neutrality, it's particularly difficult with politicans who hold important offices. I could probably find criticism from a Labour MP, or MPs, for every decision David Cameron has made so far in office, but I wouldn't want to include it all in his article. Neither am I trying to do the same with this article, but hopefully by now I've demonstrated there were certain policies of Thatcher that were, according to reliable sources not just moaning opposition MPs, extremely unpopular and controversial and it is the way these policies appear to have been glossed over that frustrates me about this article. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Does nobody other than Off2riorob have anything to say then? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes the wiki is a silent place, it is still on my list, presently busy but at some point in the not to distant future this article will be very high volume and that it is not neutral and temperated and has been for years is a bit of a wiki shame. It is quite a project when an article has developed as they do and then to tag it for re writing, who is up for it..and then users may just tag it again, it would likely be a thankless task. Off2riorob (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate you are busy with other things, I pay attention. That's why I intentionally added the words "other than Off2riorob". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Spelling errors

I can't edit the article. "Reposting" should be "riposting". 86.161.31.85 (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Corrected to "responding" --Wikiain (talk) 10:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I too can't edit the article. "victimize" should be "victimise". Although i'm sure in other articles this would be spelt correctly if it was said by an American, but i'm sure that Thatcher would have spelt it "victimise" (Aaleric (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC))

Hmm, a tricky one. This is actually sourced from the New York Times, which has used US spelling. I'm almost inclined to correct it to 'victimie', though that looks messy. It wouldn't really be right to just alter the spelling in a quotation. I'll see if I can find the same quote from a British source, which would solve the problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears that though -ise is more common in British English, -ize is also recognised (the OED seems to prefer it for instance): see also Oxford spelling. I can't find the quotation online elsewhere, so it'll have to stay as is, I'm afraid... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, its a shame. It's just nice to have things spelt in the correct dialect for the audience that will read it, if you know what I mean. But I understand that with a quote, obviously you can't alter it. Aaleric (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Degree Title

{{Edit semi-protected}} Early life and education

Change "Natural Sciences, specialising in Chemistry" to "Chemistry".

She studied "Chemistry", not "Natural Sciences, specialising in Chemistry". Oxford does not have a Natural Sciences degree. The reference to http://www.margaretthatcher.org/essential/biography.asp calls her subject simply "Chemistry". PolymerMan (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done -Atmoz (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Negotiate with "terrorists"

This article said "She felt Britain should not negotiate with terrorists". Correction: with what she claimed were terrorists. Less of the jingoistic rightwing nonsense. The native Irish forces of resistance to British colonial occupation will always be freedom fighters in their own country, particularly when resisting Margaret Thatcher, authoriser of a shoot-to-kill policy against Irish people, supporter of Apartheid, the Indonesian genocide of the East Timorese and Pinochet's fascist régime. Whatever happened to NPOV in this article? 86.42.30.9 (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

How to win an argument in one sentence, and lose it again in the next but one... NPOV works both ways.

Having said that, the relevant passage makes no sense, as it says she "felt" something, and held the view "in public", but nevertheless the British Government made contact with the republican movement. They would hardly have done this against her wishes, so presumably she approved this. I can't see how you can have a reliable source for her feeling one thing and doing another. I'm inclined to see if I can find a quote from her on this which can presumably use her words (if they were her words), and if it can't be found, rewrite the passage in a more logical way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ho hum. On inspection, the word "terrorists" used in the source cited isn't attributed to Thatcher at all, but to Peter Hitchens. On that basis, I'm going to delete the relevant part of the sentence entirely. If somebody can find a proper reliable source for her making such a statement, they can of course restore something similar, with the correct citation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{Edit semi-protected}} Please change "Three years later, in 1950, she achieved a Master of Arts degree, according to her entitlement as an Oxford BA of seven years' standing since matriculation." to Three years later, in 1950, she was awarded the Oxbridge/Dublin MA, a nominal degree awarded to Bachelors of Arts of those universities on application after six or seven years' seniority as members of the university."

Reason - the degree is a nominal degree which requires no further study than that for the BA, and so it is misleading to include it in the early life and education section without stating that it is a historical tradition only and not recognition of a further year of intensive study.

Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources. Chzz  ►  22:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

It's a bit biased

Like many right wing figures, I do think this article is probably a bit guilty of "consensus building" by devoted fans of the subject. Who tend to not allow, through continuous edit wars, anything they deem derogatory.

The Westland Affair as an example - two lines, in which it makes no comment at all about how Thatcher's part in it was so controversial?

You know, I realise it's "give and take" with these things, but putting up vague claims in a legacy section stating:

1: Labour didn't reverse privatizations - as in to incinuate it justified them - when it was in fact truly impossible to do so by the time they managed to get back in

2: Only posting one poll, from a Conservative newspaper, showing her popularity, when in truth, over the last 20 years she's been loved and hated in equal measures on these things, depending what the mood of your typical voter tends to be that year.

You know, it's just a bit too far. Number 1 is just truly misleading, and bordering on Public Relations. Number 2, has no place on here, unless you're prepared to show the entire variation of poll results since she left office.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

I don't think an article that has its neutrality disputed for so long should be classed as a[REDACTED] good article and I suggest a review to see what feedback for possible improvement should be made although 2linesofK has expressed his opinions of the articles failing quite in depth, there seems no desire to rewrite the issues. Do editors think a review of its good article status will help? Off2riorob (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The good article reassessment page can be found at Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Margaret Thatcher/1. Please comment there on whether the article meets the good article criteria, preferably with suggestions for improving the article! Thanks, Geometry guy 20:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Geoguy, I think you and racepacket have given a good assessment, of course others would also be beneficial. What we need is a couple of interested quality writers willing to address some of the issues. I am up for helping doing some of the simple tidy work, are any other usersd interested to assist? Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've now delisted the article as further comments were not forthcoming. Hopefully, editors will step forward to help bring the article back up to GA standard. Malleus Fatuorum has already responded positively. Geometry guy 17:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Geometry guy. I saw Malleus making a few edits yesterday, I'll have a word with him later to see if he has a plan for improvement - many hands make light work, this article really should be raised back to good article status, as a person of such note for a generation, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Improving the article

<Copied from the above section> I saw Malleus making a few edits yesterday, I'll have a word with him later to see if he has a plan for improvement - many hands make light work, this article really should be raised back to good article status, as a person of such note for a generation, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Malleus and I have been editing independently but synthetically today: the first section on "Early life" is now taking the kind of shape I expect from a GA, with good focus, sourcing, and prose. The "plan for improvement" from my perspective is: improve the article as a whole, but also proceed through each section, bringing each up to standard. Comments, particularly on the first section, are welcome. Geometry guy 00:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no plan as such, simply a strategy, which Geometry guy has outined above; to examine the article section by section and to do whatever's needed in each. Then it will be time to take a more holistic look at the article, but at least by then maybe the disfiguring pov tag can be removed. Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That is appreciated Malleus, if you have any menial tasks I can assist with, let me know, many thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to do some serious culling, and then take a close look at what's left. The Resignation section, for instance, seems all over the shop to me, and far too long. Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I had the same view at the GAR: a significant portion of the Resignation section is actually "Legacy" material. I suggest moving such material to the Legacy section, and then applying some serious culling to both sections. Geometry guy 22:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I favoured the direct approach: I'm taking a hatchet to "Resignation". hamiltonstone (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Health

I'm unhappy with the Health section, which is far too intrusive for my taste. Is there any legitimate reason to keep it? Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The section is intrusive, and is a magnet for recentism. I've cut it back substantially and suggest that if there is any merit in what is left, it might be integrated into other sections. Having said that, we should bear in mind that there will be notable health issues to add to the article in future. Life is a terminal illness which afflicts us all. Geometry guy 22:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

True, but it's hardly a surprise that an 85-year-old has suffered/is suffering from some medical problems, one of which will no doubt be terminal. The same goes for all of us of course, we'll all suffer from a terminal medical condition one day. Probably. Unless we become one of the nosferatu. Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I had a look at the Encyclopedia Brittanica article earlier this evening. All it has to say about Thatcher's health is this: "Following a series of minor strokes, Thatcher retired from public speaking in 2002". I really can't see that we need to say any more. Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree with that, but trimming and merging may make the article easier to maintain in future. By the way, did you check out the image choices? I was surprised to see Nancy Reagan twice, but there are other biases towards the US impression of Thatcher which need to be addressed. Geometry guy 00:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the images, but I expect we'll have some work to do there as well. This is looking like a bigger job even than I'd imagined, and we haven't even really looked seriously at the pov charge yet. Although that was what triggered the GAR I'd have to say that this is eye-wateringly far away from being a GA for all sorts of reasons; I'd never pass an article that relied on Encarta as a source, for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the POV issue is the least of the problems. As I go through the article, my plan is to eliminate citations to tertiary sources like EB and Encarta as well as to partisan websites and blogs. One section down, many still to go... Geometry guy 01:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a formidable subject to research; my local library has more than 40 books on Margaret Thatcher! Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well done to Malleus and others for taking a hack at this horrible article, and to User:One Night in Hackney for flagging up the problems a while ago. I feel slightly bad because this article was vaguely on my list since November. As I have often noticed, if you ignore a job long enough here somebody else will do it, and often even better. I might even join in myself! --John (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The more the merrier. This is going to be a pretty big job, and it might be an idea at some point to allocate responsibility for different sections to different editors. Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Just noting here (via Gguy's talk page) that I'm also happy to contribute in whatever limited way I can (prose, polish and supplying tea and biscuits mainly - I don't have the time to do much in the way of digging up sources and adding content). If Malleus or someone is taking the lead on coordinating all this I'll follow whatever orders are given; otherwise I'll just chip in as I see fit :) EyeSerene 18:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly not in charge of anything here, but one thing you might like to think about doing is looking critically at sections like Relationship with the Queen. Do we really need any of that tabloid press speculation? If we do, could it be summarised and integrated into a better place? The more I look at this article the flabbier it appears to be, so any help in making it leaner would be appreciated. Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Chemistry or chemistry?

It's a very minor point and it may be that I am in error, but I've raised a point at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Degrees and academic subjects of study over whether degrees and courses of study should be capitalized.--John (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise that I'd reverted your change. Obviously though I vote for "chemistry". Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

A bizarre observation and the beginnings of a plan

Has anyone else noticed that large chunks of this article have been copy-and-pasted from Premiership of Margaret Thatcher? In fact, bizarrely some sections of this article (which with its hat note is clearly claiming to be a summary of her career as Prime Minister) are actually longer than the corresponding sections in the main article. So what I've started to do is to pull together the major themes of her premierships instead of treating each of her three terms in isolation, topics like the economy and taxation, relationship with Europe and so on. But perhaps it would be a good idea if we could agree on what a list of the major themes ought to contain. I'm rather unconvinced that it would include South Africa or Hong Kong, for instance, as the article presently does. Thoughts? Malleus Fatuorum 18:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm about halfway through reorganising the Prime Minister (1979–1990) section thematically rather than by each of her terms. It's my intention to lose the Second government (1983–1987) and Third government (1987–1990) subsections after integrating what needs to kept from those as well. I'm aware that though that this is fairly radical, so I'll stop here to allow others time to look at how this is developing and maybe offer a yay or nay as to whether they agree this is the way to go. Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The approach may be a bit radical, but it is also leading to article improvement, and I would generally support going with the flow in edits to the article, while discussing on the talk page how we might eventually structure the material.

The central portion of this article clearly has to be considered in tandem with Premiership of Margaret Thatcher. I have already used the latter to inspire improvements of the article here.

Deciding exactly how to organize this material is difficult (see User talk:Geometry guy#Maggie for one discussion) and it is likely that the Premiership article and this one will need different solutions. One solution is to present the premiership in purely thematic terms. An alternative is to proceed chronologically. Or we can do both, but preferably not at the same time in the same article!

As this is a biography, one idea would be to present the basic facts of the premiership in concise form chronologically. The cut material would then be moved to a thematic description of premiership, akin to "Legacy" but with the emphasis on factual rather than evaluative material. An entirely thematic presentation of the premiership might be more appropriate for the Premiership article. Alternatively, the latter could contain a detailed chronology, and this one could focus on the themes, which may be the current trajectory.

In either case, we will need to distinguish between Thatcher and her premiership. Events beyond Thatcher's control have a different significance and weight in an article about her than in an article about her period of government. Geometry guy 23:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult, you're right, and you're also right that this article has to be considered in tandem with her premiership article, which also needs work. After I posted I realised that I've almost finished reorganising her premiership thematically anyway, so I'll press on with that pending further discussion. My overarching view is that this article ought to focus on Thatcher's involvement with and input to each of those themes rather than the themes themselves if that makes sense. I think that the chronological approach might well be the best for her premiership article, but not for the premiership section in this one. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Difficult though it may be, I encourage and support you pressing on with a thematic approach to the premiership in this article. Geometry guy 23:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree that biography should be thematic, and focussed on her involvement, while premiership should be chronological (first govt, second govt etc), then perhaps themed within each govt. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I was suggesting the other way round, a thematic premiership section within an overall chronological biography. Malleus Fatuorum 10:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Approve the restructure. Keep up the good work. --John (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think logically bios pretty much have to be organised chronologically, though it's a good idea to treat the premiership thematically. It's right that the focus should be on Thatcher's involvement only though. The article is certainly looking tighter - nice work so far. EyeSerene 08:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Further thoughts on organisation: would it be too radical to suggest losing the sub-section headings under "Foreign affairs"? For me the potential difficultly with the sub-headings is that (1) no other section within "Prime Minister (1979–1990)" is subdivided that way; and (2) it begs the question "if X why not Y?" I think the obvious example is the Falklands war, which Thatcher constantly harked back to for the rest of her term in office with references to the "Falklands spirit". In Battle for the Falklands (Hastings & Jenkins. ISBN 033051363X. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)) Simon Jenkins claims that she was never good at handling her large, fractious cabinet and much preferred the small war council she headed during the conflict and the state of grace over reduced scrutiny that was tolerated by parliament during war but not in peacetime. That might make a nice addition actually, if only I could source it properly (my books are in storage at the mo so I've quoted from memory). EyeSerene 09:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with losing the sub-section headings under Foreign affairs, and I've taken them out. Malleus Fatuorum 10:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good - if we decide the section should be further trimmed, I think that will make it easier to do as well. EyeSerene 14:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've located the passage in my copy and am about to add to the Legacy section from it. --John (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. As with any of the edits I have made, please feel free to refine or undo them as you wish. --John (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the NPOV tag

Well, the article is looking a hell of a lot better for its spring cleaning, and well done to MF, GG and others for the sterling work they have done towards trimming and restructuring the article. I think it is now time to look at the thirteen sections above starting here. I'm going to have a preliminary hack at these; it may be that some have already been addressed in the work that has already been done. We can continue there I think; discussion here may best be restricted to the validity of this approach. --John (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea; I'd really like to get rid of that pov tag. Malleus Fatuorum 14:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll do some more work on it today. From a first glance it looks like a lot of ONiH's points may already have been addressed in the course of the rewrite. --John (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I am going to take it down as I see no objection here and the article as been completely rewritten, in some cases specifically to address the points that ONiH raised, in others through the course of normal editing. --John (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just read the rewritten article and it was really improved , many thanks to Malleus and John and Geometry Guy and all the other contributors to the rewrite - when editing calms down to a trickle I will request a GA review to reassess the articles WP:GA status. Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 60.240.237.227, 16 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please update the titles section to be more detailed. Id est, it doesn't state when Margaret Thatcher was a FRS. Refer to http://www.short-biographies.com/biographies/MargaretThatcher.html NB: 109 reference is discontinued.

Current state

• Miss Margaret Roberts (13 October 1925 – 13 December 1951)
• Mrs Denis Thatcher (13 December 1951 – 8 October 1959)
• Mrs Denis Thatcher, MP (8 October 1959 – 22 June 1970)
• The Rt Hon. Margaret Thatcher, MP, PC (22 June 1970 – 7 December 1990)
• The Rt Hon. Margaret Thatcher, OM, MP, PC (7 December 1990 – 4 February 1991)
• The Rt Hon. Lady Thatcher, OM, MP, PC (4 February 1991 – 16 March 1992)
• The Rt Hon. Lady Thatcher, OM, PC (16 March 1992 – 26 June 1992)
• The Rt Hon. The Baroness Thatcher, OM, PC (26 June 1992 – 22 April 1995)
• The Rt Hon. The Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC (since 22 April 1995)

Titles Lady Thatcher has held from birth, in chronological order:

Recommended (Please change to)

• Miss Margaret Roberts (13 October 1925–1951)
• Mrs Denis Thatcher (1951–8 October 1959)
• Mrs Denis Thatcher, MP (8 October 1959–22 June 1970)
• The Right Honourable Margaret Thatcher, MP (22 June 1970–30 June 1983)
• The Right Honourable Margaret Thatcher, FRS, MP (30 June 1983-7 December 1990)
• The Right Honourable Margaret Thatcher, OM, FRS, MP (7 December 1990–4 February 1991)
• The Right Honourable Lady Thatcher, OM, FRS, MP (4 February 1991–9 April 1992)
• The Right Honourable Lady Thatcher, OM, FRS (9 April 1992–26 June 1992)
• The Right Honourable The Baroness Thatcher, OM, PC, FRS (26 June 1992–22 April 1995)
• The Right Honourable The Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS (22 April 1995)

Ryanmurphymoore (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Not done. The reference you cite appears to be a mirror of an earlier version of this article. --John (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Margaret Thatcher/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No disamb. links.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   In lead, comma between " 1979 general election" and "she"

   "precipitate"->"precipitious"

   "Labour majority by 6,000." - can you state a percentage of the margin?

   Not yet done; need ref.--John (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

   The ref does not contain this information, sadly, and there is no immediately available source for the percentage. --John (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

   comma between "in Kent in 1950" and "she met"

   comma between "1970 general election" and "she was"

   "3,612 proposed comprehensives;" -> "3,612 proposed transitions to comprehensive secondary school systems;" or some other elaboration

   Delete: "the man who brought battery farming to Britain and" - POV

   Define IEA with a parenthetical after its first appearence.

   Please reword, " Thatcher now became the face of the ideological movement that opposed the welfare state Keynesian economics they believed was weakening Britain."

   comma between "the name" and "and it soon became"

   "the government's"->"the Labour government's"

   comma between "retirement" and "a senior Palace source"

   " to be refused an honorary doctorate by the University of Oxford."->" to not receive an honorary doctorate from the University of Oxford."

   Reword: "armed with a speech written by the playwright Ronald Millar"

   Argumentative tone: "Throughout the 1980s, revenue from the 90% tax on North Sea oil extraction was used as a short-term funding source to balance the economy and pay the costs of reform, rather than being invested in long term projects."

   Why define Thatcherism in the economics section vs a general section?

   Under Foreign Affairs, add comma between "year as Prime Minister" and "she supported"

   comma between "In April 1986" and "Thatcher"

   Isn't the quote at long enough for a blockquote?

   Quote moved out of article and into ref. --John (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

   "in the build-up to the Gulf War." - British troops did more than participate in the build-up.

   NCB - define.

   comma between " In 1979" and "Geoffrey Howe"

   Under Northern Ireland, comma between "In 1981" and "a number"

   Please rephrase: "British membership of the single currency."

   "From 1993 to 2000, Lady Thatcher served as Chancellor of the College of William and Mary in Virginia, which was established by Royal Charter in 1693. She was also Chancellor of the University of Buckingham, the UK's only private university." - This requires some explanation.

   Please clarify. --John (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

   Could you add a few words to describe the Chancellor position. Is it mostly honorary or ceremonial? In the United States, the CEO of a University is sometimes called its Chancellor.

   Per this, it's clearly an honorary position as is the norm in the UK. Clarified article. --John (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

   The absence of parallel sentence structure implies that the Chancellor of University of Buckingham is not honorary. Could you consider adding a second "honorary" in front of "Chancellor" there as well? Racepacket (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

   Further clarified. --John (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

   comma between "In 1999" and "she visited him"

   comma between "In February 2007" and "she became"

   "invited back to Number 10 in late"->"invited back to 10 Downing Street in late" - avoid inside jargon

   Is it "Number 10 Downing Street" or just "10 Downing Street"? Racepacket (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

   Please rephrase: "As the individualistic credo expressed above took hold of Thatcher's Britain, egalitarian concerns dwindled."

   Navigation footer templates should not go into the "See also" section.

   All done, except where noted. Thank you. --John (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Fn 35 and 162 are dead. Please mark fn 116 as subscription required.

   Page cites mission for Fn 65

   Resolve

   The the GA Reassessment, Geometry Guy argued that the article was biased by using pro-Thatcher sources. Do you have any comment on this?

   I believe this criticism is no longer valid following the rewrite, and would value GG's input on it. --John (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Did she have any impact on more women serving in government or in higher positions?

   Regarding focus, can the article focus more on Thatcher's personal role rather than the historical episodes. For example, one could just state that Thatcher quickly decided to send troops to retake the Falkland Islands and South Georgia, She marshalled world opinion behind her. It was a success, and increased her popularity before the general election.

   Thatcher had very little influence on women in politics. I've added a sentence to the end of the Resignation section to make that clear: "Despite being Britain's first woman Prime Minister, Thatcher had done 'little to advance the political cause of women'". Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Fair use claim for Coat of Arms would be stronger if it were discussed in the text of the article.

   Per this news story I am taking the image down. --John (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

   Good move. There are so many more important things to include. Racepacket (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing the article on hold. Racepacket (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

January 18

• Would "Media depictions" be a better title than "Cultural depictions" - you are not discussing sculpture or paintings?
  • I've no objection to that, so changed.
• Falkland War still unfocused. What was her role — did she rally international support?
  • As chair of the War Cabinet she basically ran the war, as the article now says. Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I am looking in Hastings and Jenkins. Will report back. --John (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Have tried to address this criticism; please see what you think. --John (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Good. Done.
• I would change "When she met with US" to just "She met with US" because two consecutive sentences beginning with "When" does not read well.
  • Changed to "During Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's invasion of neighbouring Kuwait in August 1990, Thatcher was visiting the US. When she met with US President George H. W. Bush, who had succeeded Reagan in 1989 ...". Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • That works for me. --John (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• During this period, was immigration a controversial subject?
  • It was, and it remains a controverisl subject. Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What was Thatcher's role in the immigration debate?

• • • I've added a snippet to clarify this. --John (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Good. Done.
• Was there not a central UK authority to monitor the success of privatizations and public-private partnerships? Did they have objective assessments of these moves?
  • No central UK authority so far as I'm aware. Privatisation and so on was a part of Thatcher's philisophy of "small government". Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • National Audit Office that appears to give privatization mixed reviews. Shouldn't the article refer to the NAO's work? Also there are many academic studies (e.g., http://www.cesifo.de/pls/guestci/download/CESifo%20Working%20Papers%202004/CESifo%20Working%20Papers%20February%202004/cesifo1_wp1126.pdf) but I would think that the NAO would have more credibillity.
      • The function of the NAO is to audit government spending, not to make long-term assessments of the success or otherwise of government strategy. But you asked about a "central UK authority", not academic studies. Whether or not privatisation was or was not ultimately successful is a judgement call; this is a biography of Margaret Thatcher, not an analysis of her policies Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Inclined to agree with Malleus here; it would be OR for us to graft mixed reviews for privatization onto this article unless it mentions the subject by name. We already cover the pros and cons of privatization in (maybe too much) detail as it is. --John (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Is there any way to recast the Privatization debate in more objective terms? I was hoping that NAO or scholars would be better than ideological opponents. I am not well suited to evaluate the degree that this section is POV. However, there must be some respected authorities that can be marshalled for this paragraph. Privatization is clearly one of the most significant portions of her legacy. Look at Evans p. 24-29.
            • This is a valid suggestion and I am still looking for sources on it. --John (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• "The next day, Michael Heseltine" =>"The next day at the party conference, Michael Heseltine" ?
  • It was the day following Howe's resignation speech, we haven't said anything about a party conference. In fact the party conference that year took place the previous month, in October. Malleus Fatuorum 18:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The article should be clear as to where the post Haseltine votes played out - was it at Parliament or at a party meeting?
      • I'm not sure what you're asking. There was a leadership election; they're conducted in private amongst the members of the parliamentary party, neither in parliament nor at a conference. Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Please modify the article to explicitly state who was doing the voting.
          • It's done by post. --John (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Here is another ref from 2010. --John (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC) oops, not postal at that time but a secret ballot. --John (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I am inclined to think that the minutiae of how this was conducted (on which I have inadvertently now become an expert) are not germane to our article here, although I think there's another article which will be expanded as a result. The important facts about how her resignation came to be seem adequately covered at the moment, which I think is the important thing. Can we mark this as closed? --John (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest, "Heseltine attracted sufficient support from the parliamentary party in the first round of voting to force the contest to a second ballot."->"Heseltine attracted sufficient support from among Conservative Party members of the House of Commons in the first round of voting to force the contest to a second ballot." -say who voted.

Excellent suggestion, and I apologize for misjudging your intention. I take your point and will implement it. --John (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• The article now says that Thatcher had done "little to advance the political cause of women" - does this mean the status of women in British society generally or the opportunities for women in British politics?
  • It means the opportunities for women in British politics. Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Can we clarify the text of the article beyond the ambiguous quotation?
      • It seems perfectly clear to me, as it must have done to the author of the quotation. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
        • How about, "Despite being Britain's first woman Prime Minister, Thatcher rarely appointed or mentored other female politicians and had done "little to advance the political cause of women"."
          • I am in agreement with Malleus here; I believe that to go further into a feminist analysis of Thatcher is to risk verging into WP:UNDUE or even WP:COATRACK territory. Can we mark this also as closed? --John (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
            • I differ to your judgment.

So we have outstanding the vote to oust her and the privatization section. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, the work on this article will be never-ending, particularly as more books are written about her and she is reassessed over time. But it is clear that the article now meets and exceeds the GA criteria. Congratulations on your hard work. Racepacket (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yea, same from me too, many thanks to User:Malleus Fatuorum, User:John, User:Geometry guy for the major works and also User:Racepacket for his experienced review and time spent on the two reviews and to User:EyeSerene, User:Hamiltonstone and anyone else I may have missed, and a special thanks to User:One Night In Hackney for being resolute in his position that the article needed improvement and for his detailed review that assisted the rewrite. Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• GA-Class Cold War articles
• High-importance Cold War articles
• Cold War task force articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (peerage) articles
• High-importance biography (peerage) articles
• Peerage and Baronetage work group articles
• GA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• High-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class England-related articles
• High-importance England-related articles
• WikiProject England pages
• GA-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Top-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• GA-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• GA-Class Lincolnshire articles
• Top-importance Lincolnshire articles
• WikiProject Lincolnshire articles
• GA-Class University of Oxford articles
• Low-importance University of Oxford articles
• GA-Class University of Oxford (colleges) articles
• WikiProject University of Oxford articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Selected anniversaries (May 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2009)