Talk:Margaret Thatcher

Frit

I would have said that the use of "frit" was deliberate, and Thatcher does not sound especially "stressed" in the debate listen here. Unfortunately I do not have access to either of the citations, which may support the "stress" theory, and may label the "frit" comment as "stressed". Can anyone confirm or deny these hypotheses? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC).

The text is still fairly close to what I wrote here (except I used 'under stress', not 'stressed'). I should be able to get a sight of the sources in the next few days. MHO is that she was trawling her mind for a third term (she liked to speak in threes) and a little bit of Grantham got caught in the net. But, let's look. (Cracking recording BTW from the days when politics was less of a beauty contest.) Mr Stephen (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the sentiments but not the exact wording is there in the given refs. A contemporary article by Michael White in the Guardian has "But the most intriguing development to emerge from question time was Mrs Thatcher's lapse under stress into the dialect of her ancestors in the East Midlands shoemaking and grocery trades. She used the word frit. To be precise, she suggested that Mr Foot might be frit." White, Michael (20 April 1983). "How the frit hit the fan". Grauniad. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I was listening to the original broadcast, and have heard a recording several times since. I have no doubt that her use of the word was deliberate and that she was not in the least stressed. But of course this is merely original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impregnable (talk • contribs) 21:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thatcher removed from prime minister category in favour of head of state

Not sure how Brits feel about this topic, but the term Head of StateHead of government can mean a king or a dictator while prime ministers are always voted into office by the public. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The change relates to Category:Female heads of government, not heads of state. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: Point taken. But heads of government can still be appointed, not elected. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)please png me

She was prime minister and clearly a female head of government, and equally clearly not a headof state. From which category are you saying that she has been removed?

Gravuritas (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Falklands

The introduction is misleading - all the polls showed Thatcher's popularity was already recovering at the beginning of 1982, before Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. (79.67.107.202 (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC))

Could you provide a secondary source for this? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Miners strike

Apparently the strike, the story was that 'pit after pit voted with their feet', 'it spread like wildfire' from Cortonwood , through Yorkshire and Scotland. The text highlights Scargills attitude to a national ballot, but shouldn't the text also reflect the 'voting with their feet' reality that the strike was popular, the need to fight back, was very widely held. The text makes it seem like Scargill was afraid of how unpopular strike action might be amongst miners, but that is surely nonsense. The text is pov right wing in its choice of what it is emphasising at this point. pit after pit voted with their feet. - the strike spread like wildfire - the text should make this clear if it is to reflect the history accurately.92.3.31.188 (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Where are you getting those quotes from? Could you suggest an alternative? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The quotes are from the documentary Still the Enemy Within, -I could suggest an alternative but would like to think about the phrasing a bit. Thank you for responding. 92.3.17.204 (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

"Still the Enemy Within is a unique insight into one of history’s most dramatic events: the 1984-85 British Miners’ Strike. No experts. No politicians. Thirty years on, this is the raw first-hand experience of those who lived through Britain’s longest strike. Follow the highs and lows of that life-changing year." Probably not a RS. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC) PS:here.

If the history related within the documentary bears a strong relation to the facts, RS should be discoverable to back up the evidence of those involved. If its true the strike spread like wildfire, and that 'pits voted with their feet' I'll find RS I expect. 92.3.17.204 (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, John Campbell's biography for one (ISBN 0099516772) tells a different story. I tried to scan the page but it was too close to the fold. I'll have another go when I can get to the scanner. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

92.3.31.188 just to check, are you saying that your book says that the strike was popular with miners or with the public? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The film documentary says it was popular with the miners, - within a week from Scotland to Kent , it had spread - Nottinghamshire was an exception. That is my understanding. As for the public, they are portrayed as split of course. 92.3.17.204 (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

To follow up on Campbell's biography, which, as I said, has a different slant on things. If you go to Amazon UK here, click on 'look inside' and search for McGahey you will see the relevant section (it's around page 364). Mr Stephen (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Styles of address

I have challenged the addition of a "Styles of address" section by User:Sdrqaz, I cant see it adding any value to the article, her honours and stuff already detailed so I am not convinced that this is encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• I agree. This adds nothing. --John (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Sdrqaz: - I agree with MilborneOne and John. At best it adds nothing, at worst, it detracts from the article. Thatcher was not Royalty, just a milk snatcher. Mjroots (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with all three of you (MilborneOne John Mjroots). Just because The Baroness Thatcher wasn't a royal doesn't mean that she should receive her own section about her styles of address. If this was the case, plenty of peers (Lord Martin, Lord Templewood, Lord Coe etc) would not have a 'styles of address' section. I don't see how this is not encyclopaedic. I feel that it is comprehensive. In terms of adding value to the article, it does because the practice of putting the year first without the month and day is the norm in most articles about styles of address. I don't see how it detracts from the article. The edit does not contradict anything in the article, and it's not as if it is glaringly obvious. Furthermore, any personal belief that Thatcher is a 'milk snatcher' has nothing to do with whether or not she has a 'styles of address' section. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a personal belief, but a fact. Thatcher snatched my milk! Mjroots (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Sdrqaz; in my case it is not a matter of personal belief (I don't think it is for Mjroots either, I think he is joking with you). I was one of the editors who helped raise this article to GA status and one of the problems was people wanting to put their pet bits and pieces onto it. I see this proposal as another well-intentioned piece of trivia that may be interesting to some but does not add to the value of this article. No offence intended. --John (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

John, no offence taken. However, may I suggest a compromise? I have noticed that Margaret Thatcher's page still has a section about her styles of address. If I am not permitted to change that section (my edit was to change the format of the styles), can the section be removed altogether? Sdrqaz (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Animosities

Lady Margeret was quite well known in her times, but younger people and people not familiar with United Kingdom might not know she was actually a person who triggered deep animosity. Wouldn't it be possible to write some words about that, without forgetting to pay due respect to the deceased? --Ghettogrrl (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)