Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Maggie Thatcher, milk snatcher

The "Education Secretary" section refers to a moniker "Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher". My recollection from her Finchley constituency at the time is that, on visiting a school, she was met with a chant invented by the kids themselves, "Maggie Thatcher, milk snatcher!" and more, which then went into the media. Wikiain (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Relevant

In section Resignation the article says (my bolding):

By November 1990 the Conservatives had been trailing Labour for 18 months.[1] Although a Mori survey for the Sunday Times showed that 83% of Conservative voters were satisfied by the way Thatcher represented the United Kingdom in Europe, a BBC poll found that Labour had increased its lead by 5 points to 14%, its biggest lead since May, while a poll for the Evening Standard found that Labour had nearly doubled its lead over the Conservatives to 13.2 points.[10] Low poll ratings, along with Thatcher's combative personality and willingness to override colleagues' opinions, contributed to discontent in the parliamentary party.[11]

Come now. Surely that bold text is nothing more than a sop here. It is clearly an attempt to inject some semblance of evidence of ongoing Thatcher support but it is on one issue and from one clearly biased demographic. Should it be removed? --bodnotbod (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Her arms

I don't think we can claim fair use on Lady T's coat of arms; the copyright resides in that particular depiction of them rather than the blazon itself. That is, we need somebody to redraw them. Quite apart from that, they appear to be out of date - the lozenge should be surrounded by the Garter. Wereon (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Asimpson23, 19 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The date of birth for Thatcher's husband appears to be incorrect -- change 1951 to 1915.

Source: his wiki page (click on the link on his name)

Asimpson23 (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason is that this is not the birth date but the date of the marriage. Keith D (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: That's his date of marriage; not birth. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Spelling errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incorrect Degree Title

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

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

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

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

Edit Request

{{Edit semi-protected}} Please change "Three years later, in 1950, she achieved a Master of Arts degree, according to her entitlement as an Oxford BA of seven years' standing since matriculation.[8]" to Three years later, in 1950, she was awarded the Oxbridge/Dublin MA, a nominal degree awarded to Bachelors of Arts of those universities on application after six or seven years' seniority as members of the university."

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

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

 Not done

It's a bit biased

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good article reassessment

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

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

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

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

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

Improving the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chemistry or chemistry?

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

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

Tag restored

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Partial critique

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

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

Hillsborough Anglo-Irish Agreement

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

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

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

resignation

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

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

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

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

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

the lede

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

• - solutions ....

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

thatchers popularity

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

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

miners death details , possible correction req

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

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

weasel words and truncated quote

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

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

Privatisation section - requires NPOV to content

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

• - section rewrite ....

Trade unions section - NPOV re write

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

• - section rewrite - offers please ....

Legacy section - NPOV rewrite

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

• - section rewrite - offers please ....

Scottish comments - possible additions or rewrite for NPOV

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

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

Further discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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