Talk:Margaret Thatcher

Reputation

The reputation on Margaret Thatcher wiki page seems to be one-sided, so much, so it's coming across biased, always looking good in her favour. Take a look at how it clams YouGov holds her in a: "see[n] in overall positive terms" by the British public, a positive reputation, which is not the case, As YouGov has had a mostly negative reputation for her since long before her death, and the dislike for her only keeps growing, as their own polling is now at disliked 39% popularity 30% and neutral 27%. Why is it showing false information? Hardergamer (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)on

First I must declare my bias. I think she was utterly evil and the harm she did the country will take generations to eradicate. However for a politician to achieve a permanent 30% popularity and only a 40% dislike shows a high degree of popularity. Whilst I would love to express my own opinion, I must be guided by reliable references. Statements about the people I know whose lives she ruined and communities she destroyed would alas be classified as original research. OrewaTel (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Obviously she wasn't "evil" by any stretch of the imagination nor by any definition. To make such an absurd statement is not only factually inaccurate but needlessly offensive. The "harm she did the country" is debatable, as indeed is the good she brought to the country, all taken into account by this article. As for "lives she ruined and communities she destroyed", it would be less WP:OR, more WP:FRINGE. While there does exist a consensus that lives were ruined and communities destroyed during her period in office, there is no consensus that she was the individual responsible. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I think anyone who could bring in a "Poll Tax" is very "evil", and evil by definition with what it was intended to do. Hardergamer (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

You obviously haven't got the slightest understanding of what the charge was intended to do. Try reading the article. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 09:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

It is the case, actually. Have you read the citation beside the "see[n] in overall positive terms" claim, which is a direct quote from it? YouGov does not record "a mostly negative reputation for her" and never has done. YouGov's polling has repeatedly concluded that's she's seen more positively than negatively. The polling you seem to be referring to is an online poll which cannot be relied on for accuracy. There is no false information. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This was not a single poll, but the total combined polling made quarter going back many years, I can remember a major YouGov poll in 2011-2012 as the first one I saw, and it was strongly negative even back then. And YouGov is known to be biased as it's owned by a major Tory donor, but I'm glade YouGov has stated this on Thatchers polling page: "Correlations identify things people with a positive opinion of Margaret Thatcher are more likely to rate positively than the rest of the population"

Also, why has her connection with Jimmy Savile been removed? Her page had a section about them for years, mainly how she worked hard lobbing every one to get him a Knighthood (now gone), but her own ministers/MPs and Senior civil servants repeatedly warned Thatcher not too, That alone is of major importance, there was even a BBC documentary (Panorama?) in the mid 90s claiming the police had warned civil servants about him, and she was told, and she would have known about him boasting on TV about having sex with many teenage girls in 83 and again 90s in one of his own columns in the Sun he claimed he had sex with teenage girls in Scarborough, other celebrities have their connections with him shown in Wikipedia even some royals do, any other person would have their connection shown, just not her.

Even the suggestion of knowing about it would be talked about in any other person.

[1]https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/explore/public_figure/Margaret_Thatcher Hardergamer (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no evidence at all of "bias" on the part of YouGov, they are one of the most foremost and reliable pollsters in the UK. Where is the evidence of a poll that was "strongly negative"? What section about "her connection with Jimmy Savile" existed when? You really need to link what you're trying to prove instead of wp:soapboxing as you're doing. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 09:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Can we put this discussion to bed? I realise that this is anecdotal, but I have consistently found a majority of British people look upon her favourably. Most of my friends and people that I respect have a different opinion but YouGov polls the general population. The evidence is clear. Her popularity won the only polls that matter, namely General Elections and since her retirement (and death) she seems to be even more popular. I am very much reminded of Derek Hatton who was a contemporary Deputy Mayor of Liverpool. His policies nearly bankrupted the Council and resulted in higher rates and reduced service for years after he was expelled. Nevertheless he was regarded as a folk hero by many Liverpudlians. OrewaTel (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Add the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom category to this page

All the other PMs have this category. Thatcher should not be an exception. 92.30.72.123 (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. Quellenbrunnen (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Typos under Legacy

In the first paragraph of the Overview section, there are several instances where "per cent" is used where "percent" is applicable. As this is a restricted article that cannot be edited by unregistered users, I cannot make the edit, and more importantly, the paragraph deals with numerical/financial subjects, thus the need for clarity. 131.7.52.152 (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Both "percent" and "per cent" are acceptable spellings. "Percent" is more usual in the US, while "per cent" is more usual in the UK and Canada. Since the article is about a UK-centered subject, the British spelling is preferred. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

What's the reason for the short lead?

I was asked to take it to the talk page, so here I am. Why does the longest serving Conservative Leader and Prime Minister have a shorter lead than the shortest serving one? HighlyLogicalVulcan (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:LEADLENGTH. Length of service is immaterial, the length of the article is what matters. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The Margaret Thatcher lead is 5 paragraphs in length. The Liz Truss lead is only 4. Quite frankly, you could replace the Thatcher lead by "British Prime Minister" and everyone would know who and what the article was about. Liz Truss is far less famous and actually needs a lead to answer the question, "Liz who?" OrewaTel (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2022

In the introduction, please remove the reference to Major as "her chancellor" and replace it with a reference to him as "her Chancellor of the Exchequer". This clarifies that it's his office, not Lord Chancellor or one of the many other positions listed at Chancellor with widely varying responsibilities. 175.39.61.121 (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Good point. Edit made OrewaTel (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)