Talk:Margaret Thatcher

Grammar

"she was said to need just four hours sleep a night": should be "four hours' sleep" (apostrophe) or "four hours of sleep". 86.174.124.26 (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads up! Happyme22 (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

extreme bias

I was amazed at how biased this article is. Thatcher was the most controversial figure in recent British political history and is detested by many people in the UK for the effects of her policies on social infrastructure, values and cohesion. It appears that any negative content in the article will immediately be removed by her fans. How should this problem be addressed in order to produce an objective article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiridens (talk • contribs) 08:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point, the problem is do you replace something thats biased one way with something thats biased the other? There isnt much neutral written about Thatcher, as you say she was "the most controversial figure in recent British political history". Its not as bad as it was but its still far from neutral....Willski72 (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition, this article recently went through a copyedit overhaul with the sole intent of making it "more neutral." It is currently a good article, meaning that it was determined that the article adheres to the standards of WP:NPOV. Happyme22 (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

My view is that where a political figure is clearly highly controversial (I assume that few would dispute this for Thatcher), this should be made clear in the introductory part of the article, preferably in the first couple of sentences, and the opposing views briefly summarised. Something along the lines of "M.T. was.. (career details, term of office etc.)... Her ..(objective description of political ideology)... is believed by some to ...(arguments about supposed benefits of deregulation etc)... while others ...(arguments about negative influence on social cohesion and institutions). Then, as long as there are sections later on in the article describing alternative viewpoints and these are not selectively deleted by biased parties, any bias is localised and identifiable by the aware reader. Clearly if this is regarded as a "good article" then the assessment process is deficient. While I am quite new to Wikipedia and don't know the ins & outs of the assessment process, I wonder if there are geographical factors coming into play here. I can see that from an international perspective (and particularly from an American perspective as Thatcher's policies were highly influenced by U.S. right-wing political thinking) the controversial aspects of her tenure in office could be less apparent than they are within the U.K.Spiridens (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You make a fair point (im English by the way though im not sure about Happyme!) and i agree with you. Although i would suggest putting the oppossing view at the bottom instead of the top. Of course this will probably open up the arguments about it basically being a criticism section and no other politician has a criticism section(which isnt actually true) and many other arguments both ways. They are a repetitive theme on this talk page!.Willski72 (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see much merit in the suggestion. Every politician is controversial. Interest groups always have an axe to grind, but the classical socialism of the old left which Thatcher opposed and defeated has long ceased to be a mainstream perspective. Overall, the Thatcher government's approval ratings don't seem significantly different from those of other governments, and the controversy shouldn't be hyped up to the point where it overshadows the fact that Thatcher established a new political consensus which Conservatives and New Labour since have basically respected, e.g., to quote Mandelson: 'Globalisation punishes hard any country that tries to run its economy by ignoring the realities of the market or prudent public finances. In this strictly narrow sense, and in the urgent need to remove rigidities and incorporate flexibility in capital, product and labour markets, we are all Thatcherites now.' Lachrie (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

But it must be remembered that those who hate her REALLY hate her. Im talking killing an old woman on the street here! Personally i believe that she fixed something that desperately needed fixing, something that no-one else was ballsy enough to do, while of course making mistakes along the way. But there are people out there that would kill her as soon as look at her, and this must be remembered.Willski72 (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

An assassination index isn't the best barometer for controversy. Was Kennedy assassinated for being controversial? Hate culture is more a problem for criminal pathology. Politics can offer a pretext for misogyny. 'Controversial' may just be an editor's code for 'I don't like her'. A critic detecting extreme bias in the article may simply be projecting his own. An encyclopaedia shouldn't be a mirror for media hype. Lachrie (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"'Controversial' may just be an editor's code for 'I don't like her'"

Very true.... most of the time anyway!Willski72 (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Lachrie on this one. I've worked on articles of other very controversial politicians, including George W. Bush and Dick Cheney; though both are definitely among the most controversial figures of modern times, the beginning of the lead of GWB's article does not say "George W. Bush was the 43rd and controversial President of the United States" because that would be placing undue weight on perception (believe it or not, that exact line was once attempted in Ronald Reagan's article). In addition, lumping criticisms or reasons why a figure is controversial at the bottom of a BLP or biography, as suggested above, would be, in essence, a criticism section. The simple statement "Those who hate her REALLY hate her" can easily describe George W. Bush as well (with masculine pronouns, of course), but you don't see erroneous statements or statement upon statement upon statement regarding his unpopularity thrown in his article "for balance".

Criticisms of Margaret Thatcher need to be dispersed throughout the article so as not to throw off the balance of the content. That said, recently on this very talk page, there was a discussion regarding the overall point of view of the article, and Lachrie and Willski both took much time to add in criticisms and, in turn, balance out the article further. Unless there is something extremely important we are leaving out, I don't see a need to insert more criticisms simply because "people who hate her REALLY hate her". My best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I heartily concur. The issue of bias will continue to rear its head however for the simple reason that "those who hate her REALLY hate her", and we'll have to keep answering the same question of bias over and over. PS that thing about Ronald Reagan made me laugh so hard i nearly fell of my seat!Willski72 (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculously biased article

Largely relevant to the above sections, this article is a disgraceful hagiography that fails WP:NPOV by a considerable margin. It is that bad I do not even have the energy to make a full list, but I'm sure these (including various factual errors that in some cases add to the bias) will do for starters to justify the addition of a tag and other editors already involved will hopefully be happy to pitch in:

• Northern Ireland section. The first sentence is completely inaccurate, the prisoners did not go on hunger strike to regain the status of political prisoners. Initially the protest began in 1976 seeking the return of political status, but the "Five Demands" were issued by the prisoners as a way for the government to save face, if they did not want to say the prisoners were "political prisoners" they could simply grant the demands and both sides would have saved face. Thus it follows that the last sentence of that paragraph is incorrect and also biased, as by 1983 all of the "Five Demands" had been conceded, which was what the prisoners went on strike for. There is no mention of the Republican Movement's view of Thatcher, there is no mention of her becoming a hate figure in Northern Ireland, there is no mention of her stance during the strike ultimately benefiting the Republican Movement, there is no mention of significant world opinion being critical of Thatcher's handling of the strike, there's no mention of British political figures saying with hindsight the strike was badly managed, it's an absolute disgrace. Now for the Anglo-Irish agreement paragraph, which merely says it happened. No mention of the Unionist community feeling betrayed by the British government, and Thatcher becoming a focus of particular rage including effigies of her being burned? No mention of widespread rioting by loyalists in protest at the agreement? It seems to me anything remotely negative has been left out!
• Falklands section. The sentence of "Victory brought a wave of patriotic enthusiasm and support for the government" is not sourced by the Encarta article, which I personally consider a wholly unreliable source considering it claims the Brighton bombing was done by an IRA "splinter group"! Considering the number of academic works that have been written about Thatcher, I do not know why a tertiary source (and not just that one, Britannica is also cited copiously) containing inaccuracies with no cited sources is being used at all? Convenience perhaps?
• 1983 Election section. Despite the source using the highly point-of-view term "massive" there is no need for this article to use it when the precise figure is known and indeed is in the sentence right after it, and splitting that into two sentences is appalling prose as well by the way. The only possible reason for the inclusion of that term is if you were writing a hagiography, which is why it's there right now it seems.... The selective omission of facts is inherently biased, it's easy to paint Thatcher as popular by only mentioning the increased majority, however if you mention other key facts like the total Tory vote going down, the total Tory percentage of the vote going down, Thatcher's vote in her own constituency going down, Labour losing vast amounts of ground to the SDP/Liberal Alliance it paints a rather different picture doesn't it? And there's also no need to hammer home the increased majority yet again in the next sentence in the article, which is in the "Economic developments" section.
• Trade unions section. If I had to write a five sentence summary of the Miners' Strike, I would not include the death of David Wilkie, certainly not while excluding the deaths of nine (yes, NINE!) other people during the strike. However if you're indending to have a "Saintly Maggie vs murdering miners" style summary I suppose it works quite well. I'm not surprised there's no mention of how Thatcher is seen in mining communities, it's "virtually impossible to convey to outsiders just how much Thatcher is hated in the former mining communities" for the record.
• Cold War section. "She modernised the British naval fleet with Trident II nuclear submarines", she did? Personally? She may have planned to, but that's hardly an accurate statement at present is it? And I say "planned to", as Trident II wasn't operational in the Royal Navy until the mid-1990s, several years after Thatcher left office. No mention of the £9 billion price tag, or is her extravagant spending on defence while simultaneously raping our national industries not being mentioned? Also why is a CNN article of unknown authorship (which is also a dead link by the way) being cited when the Trident deal has been covered by sources that are far more reliable and authoritative? The bombing of Libya has absolutely no mention of the widespread criticism Thatcher faced, most of which is even covered in her own autobiography, The Downing Street years, on page 447! "In July 1986, Thatcher expressed her belief that economic sanctions against South Africa would be immoral because they would make thousands of black workers unemployed", why is there absolutely zero mention of the criticism of her policies regarding South Africa, including her standing alone against the Commonwealth on this issue? Why is there no mention of the Queen being 'dismayed' by 'an uncaring Prime Minister' and disapproving of several major policies?
• Resignation section. "Thatcher said that pressure from her colleagues helped her to conclude that the unity of the Conservative Party and the prospect of victory in the next general election would be more likely if she resigned" is certainly an interesting take on things, unsurprisingly in this hagiography her resignation is described in Thatcher's very own couched terms. What do other people say? The Times say "forced from office". Rhodes Boyson says "forced from office". The Telegraph say "forced from office". The Guardian say "forced from office". The BBC say "forced from office" (and the second link notes that she's the only post-war PM to be forced from office!). And just to be thorough, there's plenty of uses of the phrase on Google Books and Google Scholar. Need I go on?
• Lead and legacy sections. The lead is bereft of absolutely any negative information, and the legacy section isn't much better relying on a few sentences blatantly plagiarised from the BBC . Even the Margaret Thatcher Foundation have no qualms about calling her "one of the most controversial" and "an intensely controversial figure in Britain", but the lead is even more hagiographical than the rest of the article, if that's possible!

Before anyone asks, I'm not going to assume good faith. I looked at events I'm most informed about (thus this should not be seen as a full list), and I saw a systematic omission of negative information. With a figure as controversial as Thatcher (not that you'd know she was controversial reading this hagiography!) that can only be deliberate. The bias in this article runs deep and throughout. I find the comments of "In addition, this article recently went through a copyedit overhaul with the sole intent of making it "more neutral." It is currently a good article, meaning that it was determined that the article adheres to the standards of WP:NPOV" from the main architect of this hagiography to be comical. How, pray tell, would copyediting improve the neutrality of an article where negative information has been systematically left out, since copyediting would not involve adding it? The "review" was cursory at best, and simply because good articles should meet WP:NPOV doesn't automatically mean this one does. As this delisting review shows even recently promoted good articles can have major problems, and the good article procedure relies on the capability of the reviewer. Unless this hagiography is significantly improved in the very near future I'm taking this to GAR. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please just go ahead and make changes you think would improve balance in the article, preferably without insulting other editors. Lachrie (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of your points are good ones, and the article should be improved. WHy not just get on and do it rather than throwing around invective? --Snowded ^TALK 15:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he raised the issues as a point of order to ensure acknowledgement of the issue and support for the changes. Which in my opinion he has (from me anyway).--Vintagekits (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That can be done without attacking other editors. David Underdown (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Who exactly is he attacking?--Vintagekits (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

By implication of "I'm not going to assume good faith" everyone else who has ever edited this article, as well as breaking fundamental Wikipedia tenets. David Underdown (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Cry me a bloody river. It's pathetic you think someone not assuming good faith on an article talk page is a worse crime than this article which fails a non-negotiable Wikimedia Foundation level policy by miles. So why don't you stop droning on about me and address the really important issues? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No, jsut trying to point out that by expressing youself in such a way you put the backs up of people who might otherwise by sympathetic to what your saying. You made good pionts, and then tossed in a pointless attack that didn't advance your case at all. David Underdown (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Mostly good, but it must be made sure that there is no bias the other way. For example if "raping our national industry" isnt biased i dont know what is. Also all independent research has shown that only David Wilkie died in the Miner's Strike, so to say that 9 others died needs a lot of sources.Willski72 (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Just re-write the offending parts ONiH. Most of us here agree the article has gone from bad to worse over the past two years. Theres bound to be a certain amount of contention with your new text but I can't see there being too much if you stick to the area's mentioned above. - Galloglass 16:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The word "controversial" already appears five times in the article. The article has problems; most obviously, some of the difficult issues only receive cursory treatment. To call it a hagiography is an exaggeration. Balance can't be used to justify giving minority perspectives equal space, and some points of contention are the purview of specialists and can be dealt with in greater detail in the Premiership of Margaret Thatcher, where several of the economic aspects, for instance, have been given a little more depth. Lachrie (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

2 lines of K's critique is far more balanced than this article. This has been a long time coming. I will support any changes along the lines noted above. Daicaregos (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that after reading such a critique, the reader might be left in some doubt as to how such a monster ever got elected. It comes across as a bit jaundiced and hysterical. The article reflects the fact that even controversial policies weren't entirely devoid of public support. It's also written more from a national rather than a provincial perspective, and while it has some omissions, e.g. Grenada, opposition the Libya bombing, the Commonwealth etc., some of the complaints do seem to reflect a fairly superficial reading, while the inclusion or elaboration of others may be hard to justify in a biographical article. Lachrie (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time that some of the main editors of this article took a step back to allow other editors to contribute, such as 2 lines of K. The consensus here is that the article is WP:POV towards Margaret Thatcher. It's time the balance was redressed. Daicaregos (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if people have something specific to contribute to the article they should actually do so, rather than making vague insinuations about the contributions of others. Lachrie (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If you aren't too keen on 'vague insinuations', how about this: This article is a disgrace. I had a look at it a month or so ago and was appalled. Sadly, I had neither the time nor the energy to attempt the complete overhaul this article so desperately needs. And, quite frankly, had no idea where to start. Your statement that the article is written 'from a national rather than a provincial perspective' is patronising (at best), and is completely irrelevant anyway. You note that 'The word "controversial" already appears five times in the article.' Do you really believe that makes it WP:NPOV? This may be a case of WP:OWN. Please step back and allow other editors a chance to balance this article. 2 lines of K has my support. Daicaregos (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is very uneven, which is why I'm making improvements to it, and encourage others to do so. But so far the sound and fury don't signify very much. The criticism is over the top and seems politically motivated. We have to keep in mind that traditional critiques of Thatcherism often reflect sectional or regional perspectives. Your own negativity here isn't very constructive. Perhaps you should take a step back. Lachrie (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Daicaregos and Lachrie i see were you're both coming from. To Lachrie i suggest you let them put stuff in and see what it looks like, it can always be reverted if necessary (which hopefully it wont be). To Daicaregos i repeat what i wrote above, if "raping our national industry" etc is put in it will get deleted, regardless of whether its your personal point of view.Willski72 (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Those were not my words. Please do not suggest that I have an agenda to insert POV phrases into this article, when what I am striving for is balance. Daicaregos (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologise Daicaregos i meant to include One Night in Hackney with you (on your side of the divide so to speak). Therefore many of the things i said were really to and for One Night in Hackney. My fault entirely.Willski72 (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted, Willski72. Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to various points...

The only possible thing I can see that could be construed as an insult is "main architect of this hagiography", which for me is mild at best. Everything else I have written is about the content, so for editors to try and sidetrack this discussion isn't very helpful.

I notice Willski72 makes the bold (and incorrect) unsourced statement that all independent research has confirmed only Paul Wilkie died during the Miners Strike, while saying I need sources to prove ten people died. I'm missing one name (one source gives a total of nine, so that might be the figure...), but Paul and Darren Holmes died digging for coal, Paul Womersley died digging for coal, Joe Green and David Jones died while picketing, Jimmy Jones, Terry Leaves and Mike Rice died in various ways, source for ten deaths in total. The independent research seems to have come up a bit short, but there's no need to apologise. Furthermore the information on David Wilkie didn't even accurately reflect what the BBC source says. Yes, two men were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. However this article neglects to mention what the BBC also says, which is that the convictions were reduced to manslaughter on appeal and the sentences reduced to eight years. It's little things like that which don't give me much faith in the GA reviewer, thus this article shouldn't be assumed to be neutral because it passed the review.

I could have just made the changes I initially detailed above, but that's ignoring the bigger issues surely? Drive-by tagging is discouraged, in fact if there's a {{POV}} template placed without any substantive reasoning on the talk page it should be removed. So I post a semi-detailed reasoning on here, and everyone is saying "just make the changes". Well if I had time I would, but that's still ignoring the bigger issues. Happyme22 (who seems to be the main author of this version) seems to be in denial believing that if an article is a good article it has to be neutral, and dismissed a previous complaint about neutrality on that basis. The complaint wasn't particularly precise on which parts of the article aren't neutral, so I decide to post some examples. I say examples as I hope they demonstrate the bias that is in this article, and make editors realise there may well be similar problems in the rest of the article. As I lack the time to investigate this thoroughly (as I'm busy doing some research for three articles I want to get to FA) I specifically asked for other editors to help identify other problems in the article. Take the resignation for example, where Thatcher's view is given (as it should be, given it was effectively her resignation speech) but the prevailing view from other sources is omitted. Now if this happens in relation to other events, you're looked at an unduly slanted article you would agree? So can anyone see any other significant problems that can be dealt with at the same time, as I was kind of hoping we could identify other areas in need of attention?

At no time did I suggest the phrase "raping our national industry" should be added to the article.

I'll go in depth about why I'm unhappy about some information being removed. The Unionist (and Loyalist) reaction to the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was described as a viewpoint (and quite an insignificant one at that it seems) and removed. While rioting may in fact be a de facto national sport in Northern Ireland, it is extremely unusual for Loyalist rioting to occur based on something a Conservative Prime Minister has done, as the Conservatives are traditionally very pro-Union. It is even more unusual for effigies of a Conservative Prime Minister to be burned by Loyalists. It is just as unusual for 100,000-200,000 people (considering the population of Northern Ireland at the time was about 1,500,000 and about 40% of those were Catholics unlikely to be attending, you're looking at 1 in 9 people out of the entire Protestant population of Northern Ireland attending just going by the bottom estimate) to gather at an Ulster Says No rally protesting against something a Conservative Prime Minister has done. Taken together, this really does mean that the reaction to the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is slightly more than a "viewpoint", it wasn't just a few angry Unionist politicans being unhappy and getting their names in the paper. For more information on all this see the CAIN chronology of the AIA.

Don't even get me started on Premiership of Margaret Thatcher. In relation to the hunger strike "Thatcher later asserted, 'The outcome was a significant defeat for the IRA.' ", oh my dear lord. While Thatcher's viewpoint is important, most if not all secondary sources state the long terms gains were in fact made by the IRA and broader Republican Movement, considering it a Pyrrhic victory for Thatcher. I'll be fixing that myself later. But back on topic, while that article should cover things in greater detail, the guidelines about content forking and summary style come into play. Thus the claim that "the inclusion or elaboration of others seems hard to justify in a biographical article" is a false one. Any event covered in this article and in greater detail in the "Premiership..." article must have a neutral summary of the greater detail, you can't hide all criticism away in another article otherwise it becomes a POV fork. You say some of the complaints reflect a fairly superficial reading, oh come on! Rather than fall into the trap that the previous complainants made, I made specific points about specific events, if you're going to accuse me of a "fairly superficial reading" at least be specific about which points you are talking about. Could you please explain what you mean by a national rather than a provincial perspective? I believe I know what you are hinting at, but wanted to check before replying to that point.

The article uses "controversial" five times, but did you actually look at the context? The first is in relation to police tactics during the Miners' Strike, and therefore indirectly related to Thatcher at best. The second one is in relation to the abolition of the GLC and six Labour controlled councils, but virtually every politican in a position of power has put controversial plans into place at one time or another. The third is in relation to chapters in a book she had written. The fourth is using controversial in a direct manner to her admittedly, and the fifth is in relation to her being given a state funeral. My point remains that if the Margaret Thatcher Foundation (of all people!) are honest enough to call her "one of the most controversial" and "an intensely controversial figure in Britain" then we should also, especially in the lead (not necessarily that wording, but something that covers it). The broader point is not necessarily adding in as many controversial incidents as possible (although anything covered should be done neutrally, which hasn't happened at times), but that on the whole Thatcher is seen as a controversial figure.

As for the question on how such a "monster" (your words, not mine!) got elected in the first place, it didn't really matter who was leading the Tories as Labour were heading for defeat in the general election following the Winter of Discontent and the 1979 vote of no confidence against the government of James Callaghan. How she stayed in office is generally due to the splits in Labour and their unfortunate habit of picking unelectable people such as Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock as leaders. While Thatcher may have her faults there is little doubt she acted statesmanlike (I refuse to use the term stateswomanlike out of principle) whereas you really can't imagine a nondescript, scruffy looking man like Michael Foot meeting the American president at the White House can you? Politican he was, statesman he wasn't.

And largely unrelated to the comments above, but touched upon in my initial comments and also mentioned in the peer review that was done. Considering the number of books about Thatcher there are, I also find the sourcing in this article somewhat sub-par. With that many books available, this article shouldn't be relying on tertiary sources, brief BBC reports years after the event, CNN profiles etc etc. I'd even prefer book sources to be used over the contemporary news reports that are frequently used as well (excepting more recent events obviously, such as her declining health etc). 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for dispelling my concerns. I have now only one problem, of those ten that died, 3 died digging for coal. You may have to explain to me what that had to do with the strike other than job relation. The fact that they were working means they were not part of the strike surely? This is not criticism it just needs clearing up.Willski72 (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

From memory, and after checking the first ref given above, those killed "digging for coal" were usually raltives of miners trying to find a few scraps of coal, either for fuel since little money was coming in, or to sell locally, rather than being killed mining as such. David Underdown (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, if thats the case then its linked enough with the strike for me!Willski72 (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The tone of much of this supposed criticism falls far short of dispassionate, which honestly doesn't inspire much confidence. Some of the cheer squad sound like they'd be happy to turn the article into an attack page. I'm not going to go through the whole shopping list of random niggles about topics like Northern Ireland. The relevance of some for an article of reasonable length seems quite tenuous and can be more efficiently dealt with in specific edits. Labelling a public figure controversial isn't very helpful. Clement Attlee is a secular saint to modern historians in the universities but his policies were also polarising and controversial in his day. Controversy is the province of controversialists and can't be understood except in relation to the primary factual content. There should be less emphasis on marginal framing—which too readily lends itself to spin and polemic—than on the factual content in the lead and the rest of the article. Yesterday the article had a single sentence on Libya, another on Trident, and another on South Africa, and still I think has nothing on Grenada. That the Tories faced a divided opposition is mentioned repeatedly. Obviously the article needs to be rationalised. Parts are poorly written. What we really need are verifiable facts, especially economic and spending data. The analysis of the effects of policy needs to be much more systematic. Contemporary news reports often contain more solid facts and a more balanced treatment of specific problems than meandering retrospectives. Some sections need to be expanded while others need to be summarised and hived off. Frankly, it does seem a bit premature to be banging on about criticism and analysis of specific policies when we're still assembling the bare bones of a factual narrative. Lachrie (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There are still glaring omissions and shortcomings in the article, without adding to them through excessive cutting, as attempted in the lead. We need something on Grenada, more coverage of the return of the Treasury’s policy hegemony and the landmark emphasis on control of inflation at the expense of employment in monetarist partial reversal of post-war bastardised Keynesianism, the relaxation of exchange controls, the Big Bang, the Lawson credit boom, and statistics (and, even better, a graph) on the supposed equality/efficiency trade off and rising prosperity creating an income gap. Nott's defence review and force reconfiguration, Carrington's resignation, and the early increase and later decrease in national defence expenditures. All important events and themes of the Thatcher government. It would be good if people could make more constructive contributions on these lines. Lachrie (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The article has so many problems, I think it needs to be cut and left almost bare bones, because almost any elaboration ,however well intentioned, tends to reveal itself as ideologically partisan. My solution would be to simplify, cut, cut and cut again and leave it to articles veering off from the main biographical subject to deal with complexities. If Thatcher says 'I'm for freedom, individual liberty, entrepreneurship, democracy' you don't just write like a complete idiot 'Thatcher was a defender of individual liberty, freedom, entrepreneurship, democracy - we can't understand Thatcher unless we understand her devotion to these things.' Blimey. And she said she was sad when Pinochet died, which I didn't know she'd said til I read the wikipedia article. Must have seen in him a fellow lover of liberty. Touching, aint it? The article is worthless as it stands. Sayerslle (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Unspecific suggestions to "cut, cut, and cut again" do not help us here in the middle of an intense debate about the overall POV of a highly trafficked article. If you have specific suggestions regarding content, please feel free to list them here. But while many at this article are trying to engage others who have brought concerns regarding NPOV to the table and reach solutions, preaching to us about how the article is "worthless" doesn't help at all. --Happyme22 (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Lazy editorialising is the bane of Wikipedia. People should be adding to the factual content rather than taking from it. Describing Thatcher’s ideology isn’t the same thing as endorsing it. The existing content of the article is actually reasonably balanced, which each section giving some context for political decisions (including opinion polls) and at least alluding to opposition criticism. In some cases maintaining a semblance of balance has required going into a painstaking level of detail. Excessive cutting makes things worse rather than better. The main shortcomings of the article are its omissions. But, if anything, too much space has been given to the long-term decline of northern manufacturing at the expense of the growth in services in the south. This imbalance in coverage reflects the regional and sectoral bias common to Thatcher criticism. We also need more on the oil revenue debate.Lachrie (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[arbitrary break for editing ease]

One very specific little thing then . 'Thatcher was brought up a devout Methodist and has remained a Christian throughout her life.' And this is supported by a link to a few words she spoke at some meeting of Calvinists in Scotland in 1988.. - the sentence could be cut this way ; 'Thatcher was brought up a Methodist but Christianity proved no sort of guiding thread in her life.' Remember in Matthew when Jesus said 'You have heard 'an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth' but I say do not resist evil'..and 'go and sell your possessions and give to the poor and follow me.' etc But Thatcher said we should resist, and arm ourselves to the teeth , and hate our enemies, and was careful to marry a rich businessman who becme a richer executive in the oil industry before preaching to the poor about good housekeeping..So that one sentence..if I cut it to ' Thatcher was brought up a Methodist - though Christianity played no shaping role of her beliefs and practices.' will that survive. No, so it's not worth writing - but the article is right wing biased to a crippling degree in my opinion. Sayerslle (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If you locate yourself on the left of the political spectrum your subjective perception of bias is going to be different from those at the centre or on the right, and all you're doing is confirming your own ideological position. I agree the adjective "devout" is problematic. A subject's internal life can't be independently verified, so including it means taking Thatcher at her own evaluation, which the most strident opponents would be loath to do, even on such an intimate matter, although it does seem rather petty to be denying the sincerity of her private religious convictions when these can never be amenable to objective scientific proof. There is a well-established historical intersection between Protestant Nonconformity and classical liberalism, and a form of Christianity was integral to the "Victorian values" Thatcher said she wished to revive. Obviously you can't impose your own personal interpretation of Christianity on the article, by inserting overtly judgmental statements based on your own selective - and inherently contestable - reading of scripture. Lachrie (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, 'resist not evil' only has to be taken away to a Protestant laboratory and de-fused and 'interpreted' by people who have no intention of letting a small thing like the words of Jesus get in the way of their 'Christianity'. Thatcher was not religious, and she's only of interest because of her politics so the sentence 'she remained a Christian all her life' is there because it looks nice to a certain sort of right-wing propagandist, the subliminal building up of the text is..this is a religious woman, a strong woman, a principled woman, etc' I could live with the sentence 'Thatcher was brought up a Methodist.' Then , move on. You can't see into anothers soul but you can see what they do. The whole article takes Thatcher at her own estimation, 'describing Thatchers ideology is not endorsing it' but the article kind of describes Thatchers ideology in the words Thatcher herself used to describe her ideology, uncritically. Sayerslle (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The article discusses negative consequences of Thatcher's policies and contains many sourced criticisms of Thatcher. The ideology is described in conventional terms. It may not be possible completely to factor out evaluative elements from descriptive elements in any description of values. That's a complex philosophical problem. It's up to you to propose an alternative wording that does the job better. Wholesale deletion of the relevant passages is obviously much less informative. Thatcherism and the New Right have their own articles where more detailed accounts can be fully developed. No serious commentator on the subject disputes that there are important points of intersection between religion and politics. But Christianity is too diverse to be monopolised by any one denomination or comprehended within a single harmonious system of values. Claims of universality by one sect are invariably contested by others. A biographical article isn't a platform for you to propagate your personal dogmas. Lachrie (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

'Resist not evil' is not my personal dogma, its in the Catholic bible, i dunno whats in the Protestant one. I dont agree with it , i'd have fought like crazy when the Protestant vandals desecrated the Catholic churches, and smashed the stained glass , the morons.In the lede what I hate are the lines from 'Thatcher entered ..determined to reverse economic decline..up to the point where we get to her early unpopularity. Those three sentences or so. What I think should replace it are direct quotes from the '79 manifesto for each of the major headings, like ' She was elected in 79 on the back of a manifesto that wanted a..b...c... and then verify those statements with quotes and page numbers from the manifesto. As it stands it reads dead right wing...she wanted to reverse the decline..freedom..entrepreneurs.. sounds great but it's just waffle verify it..free markets..great, but have free markets ever existed, since everything in the real world is underlined in the economies of the world by violence, the threat of violence ,the use of power by the rich to impose their terms and conditions..I'd keep it very specific and not whirl off into philosophical abstractions, more quotes, a few well chosen statistics, less daily mail style sucking up to the woman. Sayerslle (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Id be careful with the Protestant bashing, we could always talk about the time the Catholic church had 3 Popes at the same time, and when Pope's had illegitamite children and Mistresses, oh and that one time when a woman posed as Pope for about a decade before being found out and burnt at the stake, "the morons".Willski72 (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

PS, i would have resisted like crazy when the Catholic Church decided to burn me and my friends alive and torture them in terrible ways for being Protestant/Jewish/Muslim in the Inquisition, the morons.Willski72 (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Remember that the lead is intended as an overview of the article. I'm no fan of Thatcher, but it seems a reasonable summary of the major themes of her premiership. By necessity it is a simple round-up, we can argue about the true nature of free markets elsewhere, but not in the lead, some discussion is appropriate in the body of this article, but indpeth examination of the conept has to be left to free market, that's the great thing about hyperlinks. I don't see how you can have a lead on Thatcher without mentioning it, and I certianly don't think quoting verbatim from manifestos would be at all helpful. David Underdown (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday, as I recall, your complaint was that the passage read like excerpts from a Conservative manifesto. Now your solution is to replace it with excerpts from the Conservative manifesto. It doesn't sound like much of an improvement, but if you want to try it out, go ahead, and we can see if it's an improvement. On the subject of ending relative economic decline, the United Kingdom lagged behind the productivity levels of other advanced capitalist countries until the labour-shedding recession of 1979-81 allowed it to close the gap. See Middleton, Government versus the Market, p. 630. According to the OECD, annual percentage change in real GDP per capita in Britain from 1964 to 1979 was lower than in OECD Europe and the USA, while from 1979-1989 it was higher. Indices of real GDP per worker also show a similar improvement in relative terms. Regardless, ending relative decline was her ambition, and would still have been her ambition, even if she had failed, so the statement of intention doesn't seem problematic.

On "Resist not evil", Matt 5:39 is in the King James version too. Your personal religious opinions about Thatcher are your own, and don't merit inclusion in the article. According to Kotler-Berkowitz's study of religion and voting behaviour: "Dissenting Protestants [including Methodists] display the highest overall levels of both behaviour and belief." The study also found: "Church attendance and membership and activism in religious groups reduce the likelihood of Labour voting." (My italics.) Source: Laurence A. Kotler-Berkowitz, "Religion and Voting Behaviour", British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Jul., 2001), pp. 532, 541.

On the subject of Thatcher and religion, the following is a good, concise summary of her view of the role of religion, which led to a public disagreement with the social reformers of the Anglican hierarchy; the direct quotation from Thatcher herself (in bold) should probably be incorporated into the text of the article: "Addressing the Church of Scotland's General Assembly in May 1988 ... Mrs. Thatcher affirmed the belief that 'Christianity is about spiritual redemption, not social reform.' Her view had the backing of the majority of respondents to a Gallup Poll of Anglicans in 1985 — 58 percent of lay Anglicans were opposed to the church's active involvement in politics. But, by contrast, 86 percent of Anglican clergy claimed that their church should be actively involved in politics." Source: James A. Beckford, "Politics and Religion in England and Wales", Daedalus, Vol. 120, No. 3, Religion and Politics (Summer, 1991), p. 201, n. 36, citing Sunday Telegraph (1 April 1985). Lachrie (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry the Catholics burnt you and your friends alive Willski. The smashing up of the beautiful churches in the Reformation and the Inquisition, were both wrong..two wrongs don't make a right, I like to think i'd have spoken up against the Inquisition and then defended the beautiful churches..If 'resist not evil' is in the King James why did a devout Methodist ignore Jesus' words..I still say 'she remained a Christian' is there for a weird reason, she wasn't interested in religion, you know that, ...Specifically again that paragraph, 'Thatcher entered 10 Downing St..' scrap, its pompous 'peacock' i think wiki calls it, , then ' determined to reverse relative decline...' , redundant rubbish, what Prime Minister 'enters 10 Downing Street' determined to accelerate decline, its a kind of neutral looking set of words but it's a sly attempt to make the reader think backwards, to associate the previous Labour govt, and union power with economic decline and continued economic ongoing decline if the rascals had had the chance..but perhaps they too would havce increased gdp in the 80s, and perhaps the whole greed is good banking crisis, rich getting richer scenario could have been avoided and Britain wouldnt be curling at the edges the way it is now, etc, we don't know... so scrap all that and have 'Thatcher had been elected on a manifesto promising a...then a fragment of quote from manifesto, b. for less state intervention or whatever (except the police, more state endowed power for them cos she'd be wanting them. c..free-market ideology. Then on to 'Initially unpopular amid...' then pick up the lead as it is..then the article lead is o.k I reckon. I certainly agree that verbatim quotes from the Manifesto is a horrible thing but at least they would be verifiable points about what she was first elected on.Sayerslle (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the religious back-and-forth needs to stop. Wikipedia does not care whether you are a Protestant, a Catholic, a Jew, a Hindu, etc. The personal views of Wikipedia editors when it comes to religion are completely irrelevant; even if they were relevant, this is certainly not the place to discuss them. So please stop.

I think the first lead was better. It certainly was more concise and better fit for a lead section. I've had numerous discussions about leads on articles of high-profile policical figures. Generally when writing, the lead should not dwell on a single piece of information or a single event in the person's career; in this case, the rewritten version dwells too heavily on how or why she was elected.

Most importantly, it mentions nothing of her attempts to revitalize the economy. It mentions nothing of the free markets, which is the core point of Thatcherism. It mentions nothing of privitization, another crucial element. It introduces the trades unions, but the trades unions are already discussed three sentences down. Witholding crucial information about Thatcherism is not only a violation of WP:NPOV but it is flat out neglegent, especially as the lead then goes onto highlight her unpopularity without mentioning her attempts to restore the economy.

Beginning with "Thatcher entered 10 Downing Street" simply elevates the standard of the prose. If this article is ever to be nominated for FA down the road, one of the criteria is that the prose be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" (WP:FA?, 1a). "Determined to reverse" may be rewritten as "with a mandate to" or "with the established goal of".

As it has been rewritten, it implies that Thatcher said those quotes. It is allowing the Conservative Manifesto to speak for her and act as the basis for all her thoughts. That is misrepresenting the subject. In addition, what is the Conservative Manifesto? What relevance is it to Thatcher other than the fact that she was (and is) a conservative? Maybe it is something well known in the U.K., but, as an American, I've never heard of it. And not all readers of this article are from the U.K.

In addition, just for those who may be unsure, the MOS does not mandate that the lead contain citations. It is assumed that all material in the lead is thoroughly referenced in the article.

As the burden is on the editor who wishes to make a change, I am going to revert until we can get this resolved. Happyme22 (talk) 07:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The words about 'reversing our countrys relative decline' are Thatchers words from the preface to the Manifesto, at least have the decency to put them in quotation marks, they are not self-evident, they are tendentious, it needs a ref to show how and in what ways Britain had declined 74-79.. - a Manifesto is a document outlining a partys political programme - it doesn't inspire much confidence that you don't know that, or at least look the bloody word up in a dictionary , how can you have had numerous talks on political issues and not know what a manifesto is, f..k me as Gordon Ramsay would say..' it mentions nothing of her attempts to revitalize the economy' , don't you see that is all POV , it may be messier to have a few quotes instead of neat blue hyperlinks on freedom, free markets, entrepreneurs etc, but it would be more honest, less biased. When you do look at the Manifesto , which must be assumed to be endorsed by her dontcha know, it claims Labour can't represent the whole country because its union dominated , but that she could unite the country and heal divisions. She had no particular class interest you see. Now , you may agree with that, but some see that as disingenuous, an appeal to the less conscious in the society who are tricked into voting for a pro-big landowners, big business, multinationals party - not really for 'freedom' at all. But the lead just swallows her 'line' whole. But an encyclopedia should be written by thinking humans, not spoon fed dummies. I discussed religion because there was a claim supported by a bit of talk about her view of Xty that sought to make out she 'remained a Christian', but there is no evidence religion was of the least importance to her, and is included in the article for no reason. She remained the daughter of her parents - and , so what, we are all given a religion or not as a child, same as we don't choose our parents, but if you want to prove adult religious adherence or commitment it needs a better quote. If I give my view on what Hinduism is, it doesn't make me a Hindu. All she does in the link is give a view of what Xty is. So what. I dont like the way either on a talk page you said some people want to turn the talk page into a sideshow, and all your good work must be protected. I want honestly to make it look more encyclopedic , less openly partisan. If Im not helping thats bad but I am not trying to destroy anything, just make it less a hagiography, which it is. Sayerslle (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The manifesto is what the party promise to do if elected, it is there for the voting public to read (though i'd be suprised if many actually do, not at the time anyway!). Labour had one and the other smaller parties had them. So many people will have voted for her on her plans to sort out the general industrial mess and unrest that the country had, rather than vote for the Labour plans (which some who would normally vote Labour might have thought was more of the same etc).Willski72 (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree hardly anybody reads the Manifesto but presumably she was saying stuff like ' we will re-unite the country as a union dominated party can't' on party political broadcasts which would have been seen by millions.It was a bizarre claim as subsequent events proved..Actually the words 'reversing our countrys relative decline' are not in the preface to the Manifesto written by Thatcher, they're in the first chapter.. just to be accurate., my mistake.I think I've had enough now, I'm going to leave off now.Sayerslle (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay so a Manifesto in the U.K. is the equivalent of a Political platform in the U.S., from what I'm getting.

So Thatcher did not recite those quotes, which means that we are misrepresenting the subject and attributing a quote to her which is not hers. That can't be done. She most likely endorsed it, but she didn't say it. Thatcher did attempt to revitalize the economy -- there isn't anything POV about that statement. Just as in the U.S. right now Obama is attempting to revitalize the economy, but his policies are controversial. Same in the U.K. with Brown. That doesn't mean that both men aren't attempting. Regardless of the result, Thatcher attempted to fix the economy by enacting programs which supported the free markets, which were based on supply side economics, which endorsed privitization, and encouraged entrepreneurialism. That is crucial information.

What I would do is retain the old lead and include this new Manifesto information in the last paragraph of the section of the article entitled "Leader of the Opposition", where information related to Thatcher's 1979 campaign is. Something such as this should be included: "The Conservative Party endorsed a platform of ...[Manifesto quotes]... and Thatcher campaigned on it." --Happyme22 (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree the old lead is much better. It's a more concise summary of Thatcher's full programme. She only seems to have contributed the foreword to the 1979 Conservative Party General Election Manifesto, and her radical programme isn't directly inferable from the understated text of 1979, when the political priority was controlling inflation. Thatcher always took a step-by-step approach to reform. The supply-side programme and trade union reform didn't start to come in until 1982, and the implementation of privatisation and deregulation was similarly gradual. Lachrie (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

'the understated text of 1979' ..examples ' This election may be the last chance we have to reverse the process [of favouring the State at the expense of the individual], to restore the balance of power in favour of the people. It is therefore the most crucial election since the war.' 'Last winter this society seemed on the brink of disintegration.' ' The Conservative governments first job will be to rebuild our economy and reunite a divided and disillusioned people. ' (Remember Labour had been in power 74-79 , 5 years - you'd think it had been 5,000 years in the face of this hyperbolic vomit. Understated? or a cynical, hysterical piece of blank sold by a charlatan. She begins in her foreword 'For me, the heart of politics is not political theory, it is people and how they want to live their lives.' But she was the most ideologically driven Conservative leader for years, Milton Friedman? not sure of spelling,, Friedrich Hayeks 'road to serfdom', were her gurus...in other words she's lying and she knows she is, ' the last chance' 'the brink of disintegration' , she played on exaggerated fears. On page one of the Manifesto it says what a great country Britain is , 'It is a country rich in natural resources, in coal, oil, gas and fertile farmlands.' If only she'd spelt out what she had in mind for them..the fertile farmlands to a tiny minority, and coal, oh yeah she had plans for that but forgot to say what in her foreword. 'I agree the old lead is much better..' yeah, well, Sayerslle (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, this isn't a forum for general political discussions. Please try to confine your comments to suggesting specific improvements to the article. The 1979 manifesto is hard to use because it focuses on short term policy objectives and is understated in terms of predicting over a decade of policy. Politicians and activists tend to have strong opinions. That's part of their motivation. It would be more accurate to say that Thatcher, rather than "lying" about what she believed or what she was going to do, was gradually emboldened by her political successes, while her early cabinet critics were progressively sidelined. The appetite for change grew by what it fed on. The fact that the ideological consensus was greater among Thatcher's predecessors on both sides of the House doesn't mean they were any less ideological than Thatcher. She was no more nor less ideological than Foot, Kinnock or Scargill. The distinction between ideological and non-ideological issues is really a false one, being based on whether the issues are controversial from one ideological perspective or another. Friedman was a Nobel prize-winning economist. Hayek was only responding to social liberal and socialist ideologues in kind. So compared with your suggested change, as supposedly rationalised by the opinionated and unfocused ramble above, yes, I'm afraid the old lead is indeed very much better. Lachrie (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you prove cross party consensus that the country was in relative decline? Give me a reference or something to read please. Looking back over some of the archives the article has often been labelled biased in favour of Thatcher, doesn't that give you any pause.Sayerslle (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on! Cross party consensus! As if Labour were going to say that what they had believed in and pushed for the past 30 years (state control, socialism) had led to economic decline! Thats like asking for cross party consensus on whether there was lots of Tory sleaze in 1997, their not going to admit it, thats political suicide!Willski72 (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Although in 1983 Gerald Kaufman, a Labour MP, called Labour's 1983 manifesto the "Longest suicide note in history." Which may help to convey the truly dismal oppossiton that Thatcher was facing at the time.Willski72 (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The criticism is rarely informed or constructive, but where it is, editors have tried to address it. There's a vast literature on declinism. Both parties had been blaming each other for causing relative decline for decades, and it was Labour who really did the most to make long-term relative decline, measured especially in terms of lagging economic growth and living standards, the central concern of British politics from the 1960s onwards. Relative decline was what Harold Wilson was alluding to when in 1964 he attacked the "thirteen wasted years" of Tory rule, and it all fed into what Samuel Brittan described in 1978 as an "orgy of pessimism and self-doubt among British leaders" which characterized the 1970s.

Jim Tomlinson, "Inventing 'decline': the falling behind of the British economy in the postwar years", Economic History Review, XLIX, 4 (1996), pp. 732-3:

As Campbell rightly argues, "1964 was the first General Election at which modernisation was the central issue. The notion of Britain's relative decline - the realisation that in terms of economic prosperity, social services, and the 'quality of life' Britain was falling behind other industrialised countries - had struck the previously complacent public consciousness quite suddenly within the previous five years. It was to be the staple assumption of every subsequent election over the next three decades."
In this period declinism was reinvented largely around the idea that Britain was lagging behind the growth in living standards taking place in other west European countries. This notion of decline was highly political, as Budge rightly emphasizes. He stresses the party political aspect, where political parties or groups out of power use "decline" as a stick to beat the government. This was certainly true in the late 1950s, where the opposition Labour Party took up decline as a basis for attacking the Conservative government, with the latter belatedly responding, and this important party political aspect will be returned to later. But in a broader sense the idea of living standards as a major concern, which underlies the new declinism, can only be understood politically, as marking a change in ideas about the extent and nature of government responsibility for economic performance.

(My bold.) Lachrie (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I get bits like...'the notion of Britains relative decline..'He stresses the party political aspect where political parties or groups out of power use "decline" as a stick to beat the govt. That's the point I was trying to make isn't it? .. Also I didnt want the analysis of an academic, or Wilson, Wilson was gone, retired, I want quotes from Callaghan , the Labour front bench that say ' yes, we know we are in relative decline , and its true , we all agree on our countrys relative decline' that kind of thing . I like the way you criticize my 'opinionated' ramble, you of course are neutral, I mean you love Thatcher obviously, but otherwise you're neutral.Sayerslle (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The larger segment you quote is from an essay titled Inventing 'decline' , thats the title, thats what I meant about the tendentious start to the section in the lead. On a general stylistic level I do agree that the lead shouldn't get too long, that over time the lead tends to creep , and get unwieldy again, but that's a different pointSayerslle (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

My political opinions don't belong in the article and neither do yours. The contemporary acceptance of relative economic decline - in the sense of a measurable lag in growth and improvement of living standards relative to other major advanced capitalist economies in the sixties and seventies - is uncontroversial. That you're even seeking to contest this indicates you have little real knowledge of contemporary British history, and are wasting everybody's time. What was debated by the political parties was the causes of and cures for that decline, with each party blaming the other. You're taking the title of an article you haven't even read out of context because doing so fits your openly revisionist anti-Thatcher agenda. Once again, you're making highly selective use of evidence you haven't even read in order to try to create an exaggerated sense of controversy. The notion that economic decline was occurring wasn't controversial. Far from being Thatcher's invention, as your edit falsely implied (without adducing any source whatever), belief in economic decline permeated the entire political culture, and went almost completely unchallenged. As Tomlinson says in his opening paragraph: "The idea that the British economy has in some sense declined in the past century informs most recent historical writing, especially economic, but also social and political. 'Declinism' can aptly be described as an ideology, a set of ideas and assumptions which are popular and largely unquestioned, articulated in both elaborate and more cursory treatments. The central assumption of declinism is that, measured by one or more aggregate economic indices, economic performance has been deficient and that, in principle, this deficiency is, or was, avoidable or remediable. Declinism therefore embraces the belief that something could and should be done to improve economic performance. Few have disputed this approach to modern British economic history. The object of this article is not to debate whether the British economy has declined or not. Rather, the aim to treat the notion of decline as an historical product and explore its origins. The questions addressed are how and why such a pervasive approach to recent British economic history came into being. To do this it is necessary first to differentiate between notions of decline."

I'm not deleting the references to Hayek and Friedman in the lead yet, as the matter does deserve some consideration, but Thatcher was influenced by many economists. Contrary to myth, she attacked laisser-faire doctrines and her government largely gave up on monetarism as a distinctive approach of macroeconomic management, so singling out Hayek and Friedman is also a rather dubious tactic, more appropriate for a polemic than an encyclopaedia, and probably doesn't fairly reflect the range of more immediate influences on her thinking. Lachrie (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

'I'm not deleting the references to Hayek and Friedman,,' but you did. Is Friedman mentioned anywhere?

'Reading the voluminous literature on British industrial decline, a visitor to Britain in the 1970s or 1980s might have expected to find a country in economic collapse, with large absolute falls in living standards. On the contrary the economy has made steady progress throughout the century, and will produce 3 to 4 times as much wealth in 2000 as it did in 1900 If there has been any economic decline at all, it has been a relative decline, a decline that can only be observed when the performance of the British economy is compared with the performance of similar economies. Whether it makes sense to compare the performance of national economies as though they were single organisations with a directing will has often been questioned. Even if it were concluded that decline was an illusion lacking any objective basis in reality it would still be necessary to explain why such a large part of Britains political elite interpreted British experience in the twentieth century as one of decline. This question can be answered once it is understood that the question of decline only makes sense by considering the interrelationship of the relative economic decline and the absolute decline in world power. It was always the absolute decline that mattered most to the British political elite, and measures to stave that off and preserve Britains traditional global role always took preference over the task of modernising the British economy and British society. In terms of its importance and capacities as a great power, Britains position in 2000 will be much reduced compared to 1900....the phenomenon of decline in a state which is or has been hegemonic has its own special character. An imperial state whose elite has become accustomed to thinking in global terms views poor domestic performance, its causes and its remedies, in a particular way. The political debate on British decline lasted from the 1880s to the 1980s, but the context of hegemony and empire, which gave it significance, is now no more. Decline is unlikely to haunt the British political imagination in the 21st century as it did in the 20th.' Andrew Gamble. I still believe she exaggerated , like a demagogue , the collapse, the crisis, the decline, theres no sense whatever in the lead that this was a politician adept at the art of propaganda and playing on the fears of people, maybe you're too 'economics' minded and miss something of the politics, I don't know. I don't think the reference to the intention of Scargill to bring down the govt is satisfactory, the mail and globe in canada/ how is that o.k? How are you supposed to consult that? Sayerslle (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also - Looking on Amazon at Andrew Gambles books theres a title 'The Free Economy and the Strong State The Politics of Thatcherism ..the bit in the lead that says 'her political philosophy and economic policies emphasised reduced state intervention' so why 'the strong state' in the title? Sayerslle (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your other deletions because they weren't constructive.

The Labour government of 1974-9 acknowledged the reality of relative economic decline and implemented policies intended to reverse it, first, under Wilson, through state intervention, and second, under Callaghan, through reform of the education system.

Heather Cathcart and Geoff Esland, "Schooling and Industry: Some Recent Contributions", British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 4, No. 3 (1983), pp. 276, 278: "A recent account of the origins of the Great Debate [on industry and education initiated by Callaghan] has been provided by John Beck in an article entitled 'Accountability, industry and education' (Beck, 1983). Beck's argument is that the origins of the Great Debate can be found in the collapse of the Labour Government's industrial strategy between 1974 and 1976. A central aim of this strategy, as set out in its Manifesto of February 1974, was the reversal of the 'long-term decline of British manufacturing industry through a programme of greatly increased state intervention'. Part of this strategy included proposals for the establishment of the National Enterprise Board, but there was also an intention to increase the accountability of companies through the extension of industrial democracy by means of company planning agreements. According to Beck, these proposals and those subsequently of the Bullock Committee on Industrial Democracy were greeted by a campaign of resistance from employers. This protest combined with the worsening economic situation and internal divisions within the Labour Party led to the abandonment of industrial democracy as an immediate goal. It was replaced by a new, more consensus-based strategy, one of the central elements of which was an attack on economically harmful attitudes alleged to be engendered by the education system. As Beck puts it, 'It was Britain's education system which was increasingly made to bear the main burden of responsibility for the country's relative economic decline.' ... It is quite evident that as a populist campaign, the industry-education debate launched by James Callaghan will survive longer than most." Lachrie (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Heres an interesting piece written by a left wing historian (Pauline Gregg) in the seventh (revised) edition of 'A Social and Economic History of Britain 1760-1972'. As you can see this is is from the time in question and here she is talking about the late 60s. She writes,

"In many directions growth remained the keynote.... A disturbing note, in a society suppossedly geared for maximum expansion, was the fact that unemplyoment was the highest since the War, reaching 600 thousand by the middle of 1970, not counting the school leavers. Some unemployment was caused by people changing jobs by redundancy..... But the figure was too high to be explained away in this fashion and was linked with the repeated crises which shook Britain at the end of the sixties. Externally these were expressed in repeated adverse balance of payments and by foreign borrowing.... Whether increased wages pushed up prices, or rising prices pulled wages up after them, the overall picture was of a spiralling inflation which the government desperately tried to stem. Refusing to be committed as to first causes, it spoke of a "prices and incomes" policy. The whole life of the 1966-70 Labour government was dominated by its efforts to enforce such a policy. Its failure to do so was the prime cause of its defeat in the Election of June 1970. The sixties are strewn with its failed endeavours-Prices and Incomes Board (established in 1965); the National Plan (September 1965); the Prices and Incomes Bill (July 1966). Whatever lip-service they paid to the need to stem inflation, the trade unions either would not or could not implement any wage restraint, and massive strikes continued.... 'In Place of Strife' was a White Paper with the subtitle "A Policy for Industrial Relations" and was published in January 1969. It proposed, like the Dononvan Report, a commission on industrial relations to look into disputes; a Register of Collective agreements {etc etc.}But trade union oppossition was firm and uncompromising. When it came to the point of loyalty to the Labour Party-their party- counted little, and appeals to the public good fell on deaf ears. The unions had narrowed their sites to wage increases, and they were so strong that the whole prices-and-incomes policy collapsed in the middle of 1969 as it became necessary to placate the unions before the general election that could not be far away.... But whatever it does and however it does it, the success-and the very life- of the Conservative government of 1970 will be bound up with the same set of problems which bedevilled the life of the Labour government- how far it can keep down prices and taxes, curb wages and salaries, and negotiate a realistic agreement with the trade union. There is little doubt not only that it will stand or fall by its success in these matters, but that the role of the trade unions in society and the whole relationship of capital and labour will be involved in the issue."

If this sounds a right wing sort of piece then it just goes to show how damaged Labour were by industrial decline at the time. If you read the rest of the book you see that she is definately Left-wing and was, previous to this, very supportive of Labour.Willski72 (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Heres more from the same book and the same author, this time talking about 1971-2 (Heath, Tory government).

"The miners, still very powerful in spite of pit closures and labour redundancy, {note that this was written before Thatcher was even oppossition leader} were by this time spoiling for a fight- more particularly since the fight would now be against the traditional enemy, a Tory government, and there would be no need to pull punches as there might have been if Labour had been in power. The miners, who considered themselves the aristocracy of the working world, doing work at once most important and the most dangerous, had improved their position so much since the War that, in spite of pit closures and the effects of redundancy, their wages had been well up amongst the highest in the country. But by 1970 they found themselves bot hit by rising prices and slipping down the national wage table as workers in private industry, particularly car workers, won big increases..... The miners did not agree to arbitration until they sensed that they had won. The tactic paid and they drove a hard bargain even after the Wilberforce Committee had reported. When their leaders emerged from 10 Downing Street with the terms both sides had accepted it was found that they had won an increase of about 21 per cent."

The miners did this again in 1974 and ended up toppling Heath's government when he called an early election on a "back me or sack me" principle. All will agree that Scargill had very strong principles and was far left. So suggesting that he might have tried to re-create the early 1970s is not so hard to believe. I'll finish with this,

"Though the full effect of restrictive action by workmen is difficult to reduce to statistics the bald figures show that the aggregate number of working days lost, which had remained, from 1964-67 at around 2,200,000 and 2,900,000 a year, jumped in 1968 to 4,690,000; in 1969 to 6,846,000 in 1970 to 10,980,000 and in 1971 to 13,558,000. The industrial position has, moreover, become such that the whole community can be held to ransom by any group operating an essential service. Sectional interests show a complete diregard for other people or for the community as a whole. There have been for a long time gross inequalities in British society, much selfishness and sectional greed. The Labour pioneers who brought their people up out of the abyss of oppression and inequality knew all about this. But they would not have condoned action which in essence is sheer anarchy, disrupting the whole economic system and bringing the maximum distress to the public, who are very largely their own fellow workers."Willski72 (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Note from GA Reviewer

I do think a GA Reassessment is needed here. Honestly, I, in a completely idiotic manner, barely even thought to look for neutrality errors. I don't think I'm experienced nearly enough with British politics, and the article is a little too controversial for me to take on. I'm open to taking the blame for this mistake, I shouldn't have reviewed the article. I would endorse a GAR because of the sheer level of criticisms above-obviously the article is not neutrally written, to say the least. I think that it is not incredibly biased as stated above, but it is enough so to cause concern. I apologize to all the fellow editors here whom I have disappointed in any way. ceranthor 14:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't beat yourself up about it. Almost everybody seems to fancy himself an expert on contemporary history by virtue of having lived through it, but it's often those with the strongest opinions who turn out to be the least informed. Lachrie (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Falklands War

It has British casualties but not Argentinian. This means that the picture is not complete. I know the purpose is to be a sort of criticism of the fact that she decided to defend the Falklands but could it not just say that she came under some criticism because casualties were quite heavy? A random person who came on this page doesnt have a clue how many Argentinian casualties there were. For all they know there could have been less than a hundred and there could have been massive military blunders. Im probably being picky here but hey ho!Willski72 (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers to whoever changed it!Willski72 (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be me. You're welcome. Lachrie (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Manual of Style issues

Whilst folks are trying to sort out the other issues, could we all make an effort to sort out compliance with WP:MOS at the same time. I think I've jsut got everything using double-quotes consistently, as mandated by WP:MOSQUOTE, but really all the quotes need to be checked for their use fo logical punctuation, ie punctuation should only be included inside a quotation of it's included in the source. There's also a mish-mash of referencing styles. Most thnigs seem to use {{cite news}}, {{cite web}} etc, but there are quite a few which don'tuse the templates, this should also be consistent. If using {{cite news}}, newspaper names should be given under the "work" parameter, not publisher. David Underdown (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"But you are no Margaret Thatcher"

William Hague attacked this decision, saying to Brown, "You may fawn now at the feet of our greatest prime minister – but you are no Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher would never have devastated the pension funds of this nation, nor kicked its small businesses in the teeth.

There is a "hidden" link behind "you are no Margaret Thatcher" that is interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator,_you're_no_Jack_Kennedy

and also relevant, perhaps; but I think it breaks with this guidelines:

Intuitiveness. WP:EGG Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Do not use them to create "easter egg links", that require the reader to follow them to understand the term. Wikipedia's articles are sometimes read in hard copy, where the option of following a link is not available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Piped_links

When I first read that part of the article the link did seem a bit too easter egg-y...

There also needs to be an extra quotation mark in here:

William Hague attacked this decision, saying to Brown, "You may fawn now at the feet of our greatest prime minister – but you are no Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher would never have devastated the pension funds of this nation, nor kicked its small businesses in the teeth. We, Gordon, backed her when she rescued our country in the face of every denunciation and insult from the likes of you.[188] Brown's spokesman insisted that the meeting was "not unusual", that it was customary for Prime Ministers to invite their predecessors to tea and that Mr Brown would be "happy" to meet any former Prime Minister.[189]

Probably after "the likes of you", before [188].

G. 117.92.155.217 (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the missing quotation mark. The passage is quite long already. It might be easier to reference Lloyd Bentsen in a footnote. Lachrie (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure whether or not he needs to be mentioned, but the way he is alluded to via that link seems contrary to the spirit of piped links, at least as explained in Wikipedia's guidelines. G. 117.92.155.217 (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Unprecedented third term?

... she was re-elected for an unprecedented third term in 1987 (from the lede).

In what sense was this unprecedented? Lord Salisbury certainly had 3 consecutive terms. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I just looked him up on wikipedia and there was a gap from 1892-1895 when someone else was P.M , so his terms weren't consecutive.Sayerslle (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

So it could really do with saying " ...for an unprecedented consecutive third term in 1987"Willski72 (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

But Tony Blair was elected three times consecutively, , so maybe '..for an unprecedented, at the time, consecutive third term in 1987.' But I don't know if that's true, it probably is. Sayerslle (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes thats true, this sentence could get really long and confusing!Willski72 (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Since it's in the past tense, future events don't matter, so the existing text is fine as it is. Lachrie (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Anglican

It may not be right to label Thatcher a Methodist in the information box. She reportedly attends the Church of England. She seems to have become a practising Anglican after marrying Denis.

An AP report from 1988 describes her as: "Mrs. Thatcher, an Anglican who grew up under the strict Methodism of her father ..." Source: Maureen Johnson, "Bible-Quoting Thatcher Stirs Furious Debate", The Associated Press (28 May 1988).

In her memoir Path to Power, p. 105, Thatcher writes: "On Sundays we took the twins to the Family Service at the Farnborough parish church. Denis was an Anglican, but we both felt that it would be confusing for the children if we did not attend the same church. The fact that our local church was Low Church made it easier for the Methodist in me to make the transition. Anyway, John Wesley regarded himself as a member of the Church of England to his dying day. I did not feel that any great theological divide had been crossed." Lachrie (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The intention of Arthur

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How we avoid bias

Dear Lachadaisical, Just wanted to let you know how much credit you deserve for your top work on the Margaret Thatcher article, she was such a wonderful woman. I am 100% convinced that the article was much more better, much more improved from where it stood prior to my - I mean our - overhaul. Much better written. Unfortunately, some attempt to portray it as a complete trainwreck and POV damaged. And you don't get the gratification you deserve, you always seem to find the right word. Some want to make the article more 'neutral', more communist I think that means! They do not help our article.

Thanks for that jolly man, People with a shortage of facts but opinions to spare seem to believe the article is some kind of forum for their views. Our priority must be to ensure that the haters of this inspirational woman don't cut sourced fact from the article. Agree about the 'wonderful woman' - not only did she reverse the UKs decline, she smashed the NUM who threatened democracy, and ended the Cold War. I think if we stay vigilant we can keep the article neutral. Sayerslle (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you have to avoid making attacks on someone's character and bringing their political opinions into this. We should be able to read the edits of users without being able to understand their political opinion and biases. I can't say that is true for some of the editors editing this article at the moment. Whilst the article did lean far too heavily one way, we have to be careful not to tilt it too far the other. It should be neutral, which I know will be extremely hard given the topic, but we must try. Woody (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't bring their political opinions into this . They did that.Sayerslle (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Plus Thatchers two archrivals- Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock's pages are pretty similar to this in levels of criticism and focus on successes.Willski72 (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably all political biography pages have problems with bias - I guess you just have to keep your wits about you when you look at them. I didn't like the Kinnock article much either. I think the Thatcher page is spectacularly biased but I'm leaving it alone now.Sayerslle (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Miners Strike

It should really mention that going on strike without a national ballot was against the law. Also no mention of the fundamental problem here.... the whole reason there was a problem in the first place. That the coal mines were not price competitive (due to a number of factors that dont necessarily need to be mentioned such as no modernisation in the past 40 years, other countries could scrape coal off the surface rather than having to go down half a mile and the Unions repeatedly pressing for high pay rises etc). It mentions that they were losing money but it doesnt mention this fundamental economic fact, which was the whole reason they were losing money.Willski72 (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

'It should really mention that going on strike without a national ballot was against the law' - if this is mentioned surely it should be mentioned that a) Thatcher made it against the law and b) she did so as a direct point of trying to curb union power. Also, I would personally rather question why Scargill decided to break the law than just assume it was intransigence.

When British Coal was created in 1947 it nationalised 1100 coal mines. By 1970 there were only 293 left. In 1994 when the "Coal Industry Act" passed and the coal mines were privatised again there were 16 left. 800 coal mines shut down between 1947 and 1970.... But that never gets a look in because Scargill chose to make a stand with the last 300. The cotton industry that was the lifeblood of Lancashire (my County) went in the sixties and seventies. I could hold a personal vendetta against Wilson and Heath, but i dont, India did it cheaper, there's nothing they could do....Willski72 (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Relative to what

In the lead why not add to the sentence about decline 'she entered,, determined to reverse relative economic decline - ('relative decline' in the sense of a measurable lag in growth and improvement of living standards relative to other major advanced capitalist economies in the 60s and 70s'- there were no absolute falls in living standards at this time) (this is what lachrie said is meant by relative, but it doesn't say so in the article). If you use the word 'relative' shouldnt it be incumbent on you to say to what?. Sayerslle (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, although perphaps we can shorten the brackets down a bit because they seem a bit long!Willski72 (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

But a concern for how neat something looks, and wanting to get a gold star and a lollipop for the article, shouldn't overturn a concern for accuracy of meaning, clearness of meaning, and not everything left vague . 'The devil is in the detail' - it's an old saying, and in this article thats why the Thatcher lovers like to be a bit vague I reckon.Sayerslle (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The devils also in the small print, you've got to watch that small print!Willski72 (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Shocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

relativus, from late latin 'having reference or relation'

Thatcher entered 10 Downing St. determined to reverse the U.Ks relative economic decline. relative to what? The article doesn't say. It is meaningless. 'Reading the voluminous literature on British industrial decline a visitor to Britain in the 1970s or 1980s might have expected to find a country in economic collapse, with large absolute falls in living standards. On the contrary the economy made steady progress throughout the century.' (Andrew Gamble). Sayerslle (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Then we can just omit "relative" and leave it as "economic decline". Happyme22 (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Back it up, don't just make sweeping statements. there were no absolute falls in living standards, explain the 'decline', I know it's the lead, but a few deft sketches of the areas of the economy that had been destroyed in the long . long years , , er 74-79, since the Conservatives had left Britain in tip-top health, the streets paved with gold, and then in '79, she arrived to deal with the crumbling cities etc..etc.. - the language of 'decline' is fraught with political undertones and overtones. You are a lover of Reagan and this old cow, but have the decency to back up your idolatry. 92.17.81.237 (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussions above have already proven that many people across the political spectrum agree that the United Kingdom was in an economic decline at the time Thatcher ascended to office. We don't need to have one of our own discussion here. Please keep your personal political opinions to yourself, as they hold no weight here. And I'm going to ignore your personal attacks as well. Happyme22 (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going away to read Andrew Gamble 's book about the politics of 'decline' I think it is , and some others . I think the article is slanted, I dont enjoy discussion here for the sake of it. I'll try not to be so rude if I return, I get so angry , and then half an hour later I think, blimey, what did I say, I don't think rudeness helps wikipedia at all , so sorry about that. Sayerslle (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

92.17.81.237. No one mentioned that the economic decline was all Labours fault between 1974-79, only that their was relative economic decline before Thatcher (it doesnt say how far back), and it was one of her aims to stop it. Although it could be blamed on the Old Labour ideas of Nationalisation that the Conservatives decided to continue (up to 1979-obviously).Willski72 (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher as anti-trade unionism, or....

...anti the tightly knit cabal of Trots and Marxists who control(ed) and abused them? I don't think the Conservative Party ever said it was specifically against trade unionism in totality, even during the Thatcher period. They seem to have been against abuse and manipultion of the trade union system by subversive Trotskyites and Marxists like Scargill who were taking backhanders from the Soviet Union in the middle of the Cold War. I don't think this point is hammered home in the article and just makes out that Thatcher randomly attacked trade unionism just on a whim.[2] - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Good Lord - Most of your county would be going nuts if they read this. Thatcher attacked the trade unions for many reasons - you seriously think there was some kind of underlying concern for the well-being of the membership paying their subs but it being controlled by barons? May I note that most of the trade union reforms were not about trade union democracy but about trade union power! She forced them to have ballots to strike...fine, but is banning membership in certain sectors in the interests of their members? Is banning secondary picketing in the interests of their members? I could go on. She was clearly anti-union because she was a servant of business interests. She quoted Hayek and regarded unions as creating market distortions. On top of that, please read up on Soviet history before linking Trotskyists with anything after the death of Lenin - you might notice an event involving an ice-pick. Finally, things like - 'who control(ed)' reveal your bias. In what sense is it the case that marxists and trotskyists control the union movement if saint Thatcher undermined this 'cabal'?

You could have a point, i dont think the plan was to get rid of the trade unions altogether, only to weaken them and get rid of the barons who were holding the country hostage for their secular interests (the sort of thing she would say). This could become an oppossite of the Scargill toppling government thing, do we have any sources where Thatcher said that she was anti trade unionism in general....Willski72 (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher has tea

In the bit about her life after 2003 there is a bit about her going to see Brown and have a cup of tea , then a lengthy quote from Hague. The article , on the life and works of Thatcher, is harmed by such trivial edits, in my opinion. Does anyone object if I delete that trivial edit or is it enlightening and essential for the article?Sayerslle (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I rather like the part about Thatcher being invited back to 10 Downing Street. It seems to have been widely covered by the British press, and I like the element of a former Conservative PM being invited to her one-time home by a successive Labour PM.

If you want to talk about trivial edits, perhaps you should review some of your own that you recently made: [3], [4], [5],

The first[6], a sad attempt for "neutrality," makes me even question your good faith and intentions for the article. Attempting to portray Denis Thatcher as neglegent because he was not present at the time of his twins' birth is sad and totally uncalled for. Richard Nixon was not present at his daughter's birth simply because he was in the middle of a campaign and was not aware that his wife, Pat, had gone into labor. We do not know the circumstances surrounding Denis Thatcher's not being present at his twins' birth, and it is original research and stricly prohibited for us to guess, which is exactly what you did as indicated by your edit summary.

The second[7] needs a citation. It is not uncommon for children of high-ranking political figures to be left to a nanny or caregiver. I'm not defending the practice, but I'm saying that it is not uncommon. Again, we cannot infer from this that Thatcher was a "neglectful parent;" it seems to me that the only reason why are you including this is to attempt to make that point.

The third[8] is somewhat difficult to understand, as one must interpret the quotation to attempt to see the point. I take it that Carol Thatcher is saying that her mother wasn't there much while they were children and now that she is retired she is upset that she sees little of them. But it is riddled with POV, including "complained" and "less than sympathetic." Depending on whether the consensus decides to retain this new information or not, you could easily reword this in a NPOV fashion: "In her later years, Thatcher was disheartened that she was not able to see her children as much as she would like, as Mark was in South Africa and Carol in Switzerland." Interesting, here is a rather nice 2008 article written by Carol Thatcher praising her mother:[9]. I don't understand why you want to delete any mention of a visit to Downing Street upon invitation in 2008, but add in a somewhat difficult to interpret quotation attempting to label Thatcher as a poor parent.

The bottom line is that these additions are all trivial. The first two are best removed while the third should be discussed. Just because there are concerns regarding NPOV, one cannot engage in a free-for-all of adding negative information, citing "balance." Happyme22 (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I read an article about Carol that said Denis was at a cricket match when she was born, I don't understand what you mean by calling that original research. I don't even understand why you call that 'a sad attempt at neutrality' - it is a biographical detail of the Thatchers lives isn't it? I didn't delete ' any mention of a visit to Downing St upon invitation in 2008' - why are you so careless about the things you write...same as ' a somewhat difficult to interpret quotation attempting to label Thatcher ..' it's a straight quote from Carol, why did you panic and think 'oh gawd, this quote must be interpreted'..I think Carol can speak for herself and the quote for itself..I'm aware that Carol had a warm relationship with her father especially towards the end of his life, that doesnt change the facts of nanny and boarding school - I didn't comment on the nanny, just added a fact about the years covered in that section. Why you consider these details trivial, that are about flesh and blood realities, confuses me.Sayerslle (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Happyme22 about the additions he cited. "In the same year her twin children Carol and Mark were born, delivered by Caesarean section while their father watched a Test match at the Oval" is so clearly an attempt to pass judgement on Denis Thatcher. Indeed, I think the article "on the life and works of Thatcher, is harmed by such trivial edits".--Britannicus (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not an attempt to pass judgment on Denis Thatcher, it is a fact. I know that as a fact, it will have a hard time surviving, a straightforward biographical fact will get removed , while a load of crypto-fascist edits get protected. Thats the way it is.Sayerslle (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you identify these "crypto-fascist" edits?--Britannicus (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Generally what I meant is the article manages to create an atmosphere of admiration for this 'strong' right wing leader while making pretty rubbish attempts to cover its tracks. One specific edit that jumps out at me is that when Thatcher spoke about fears of being swamped by people of a 'different culture' , ' white liberals and black leaders' accused Thatcher of..but she got 10k letters of support , so the equation is Thatcher plus people vs. white liberals and black leaders , that looks like a classic crypto-fascist equation to me, Who even talks like that, 'white liberals and black leaders' ,except the political far right? On the Denis Thatcher thing, I read on the Carol Thatcher page that the twins were six weeks premature, so maybe my edit summary was jumping to conclusions about his neglectfulness, but the sentence remains factually correct , in any case. Sayerslle (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

So Thatcher, the elected leader of the Conservative Party, made a comment saying she wanted to conserve her culture in some form? Well its hardly Robert Mugabe sort of stuff is it. I think its fair to presume (along with the fact of the 10 thousand letters of support) that most British people are not self-loathing and are comfortable with their own culture enough not to want to see it destroyed. Its not really a surprise that her opponents are in the minority there. Associating a slight nod to social Conservatism as "crypto-fascism", seems quite crypto-fascist itself... this sort of politically correct newspeak of course comes from Adorno and friends, not a NPOV. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sayerslle, I don't think there is anything "crypto-fascist" about the part on Thatcher's view on immigration. The popular support she got (including from traditionally Labour supporters) is a undeniable fact (I thought you liked them so much). She did get condemned by white liberals and black leaders (another fact!). Just because you disagree with Thatcher's views on immigration doesn't mean that it should be portrayed in a bad light in the article.--Britannicus (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Who even talks like that, 'white liberals and black leaders,' except the political far right?" Well Labour have set things up to make minority leaders like the Muslim Council of Britain who are, suppossedly, able to speak for all the Muslims of Britain. Unless Labour's far right as well....!Willski72 (talk) 11:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If the point about Dennis Thatcher being away at birth is left in it should mention that the children were six weeks premature and that no husband could possibly have guessed that they would be born then.Willski72 (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Small points

I have many problems with this article but I will keep it to some of the more straightforward points.

'proposals to close 20 uneconomic pits'

The whole debate at the time was surely what constitutes 'economic'? By assuming that unprofitable=uneconomic shows a narrow-minded neo-liberal bias. Maintaining a certain amount of the population employed rather than on state benefits might be considered more 'economic' than losing money in the sale of the product itself. This use of 'economic' also ignores that there may be some social good value in the actual product that is above its market value. e.g. maintaining energy security by having a domestic coal supply - or to put it another way, we could ask the question whether there is a difference between the economic benefit of a key piece of infrastructure such as a railway line and a high-class tailor, if both make the same amount of money?

'White liberals and black leaders accused Thatcher of pandering to xenophobia'

Referenced or not, she was accused of this by people of a wide-range of political persuations of different ethnic groups. Why are liberals when described necessarily white? Were there no black liberals? This almost seems to suggest that white people opposed her policy because of their beliefs whereas black people only opposed it because they percieved of it as targetting them. Also, were there not socialists, social democrats, anarchists, communists, etc opposing this policy (and I add of all different ethnicities)?

'and critics acknowledged that Thatcher's canalising of public concern "managed to marginalise the right-wing fringe'

This is contested. For a start, others have pointed to a decline in support for parties such as the National Front by people witnessing their violence at the Battle of Lewisham and other public displays of violence. Furthermore, it could be argued that whilst temporarily sucking up support from further right-wing groups, she may have fed the flames of xenophobia long-term. All of these opinions should be stated or the original statement removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenSingleton22 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe in her list of awards, it should also be listed that she was narrowly defeated by Tony Benn as BBC post-war political icon