Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

"Racist" references

Does this really merit WP:WEIGHT? I find these claims absolutely outlandish, and they should absolutely be tagged. As far as I am aware, Thatcher was not racist. The apparent assertion by the Australian foreign minister should be removed, his claim is not at all relevant to the #Legacy section; it's a provocative and incendiary addition to the article. Considering how immigration has turned out as an issue through Brexit, etc. Thatcher's alleged comments are being grossly exaggerated for effect. I'm not trying to defend what she allegedly said (not at all), but we need to get some perspective here. I would note that technically her "approach" to immigration would be more accurately described at racialist rather than full-blown racism.--Nevé–selbert 20:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion the sentence should be phrased as more of a way to indicate that these are the Australians foreign ministers opinions. I have not studied Thatcher in detail and I do not really know much about her other then her odd controversey. I see no problem with these allegations being placed in a article as long as they are stated as being the Australians foreign ministers own words with proof of those words being spoken. If they are exaggerated however I would recommend deletions. CnocBride (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Australian politics has a different rhetoric than Britain, and what is called "racist" in Canberra can be acceptable in London. Since Thatcher was talking about UK not Australia, I think the Aussie commentary was designed to bolster his own standing in Canberra. He certainly is not a reliable secondary source on Thatcher's policies. Rjensen (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thatcher's reputation regarding racism is well recorded and easy to find references for. Her statement about how Britain would be "swamped" with immigrants is so famous people have written books about it, and her comment to the Australian foreign minister is consistent with that. Are there equally well-referenced facts about work she did to combat racism? If there is, feel free to bring them here. In the meantime we will stick to the sources, and the sources use the word "racism", so we'll go with that too I think. --John (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I think John is deliberately trying to make a WP:POINT here and this isn't helpful. Take David Cameron making a statement regarding a "swarm of migrants"; most people didn't jump on the whole "Cameron is a racist!" bandwagon, people just denounced his rhetoric as dehumanising. With regard to Thatcher, these alleged remarks were neither recorded nor confirmed by an adequate number of sources. They are nothing more than hearsay from people who dislike her. As for facts regarding her opposition to racism? How about this for an interesting quote: "Of course, there is anger about racism in South Africa. You and I would feel the same if we were not able to take part in the political development of the country and if we were discriminated against just because of the colour of our skins. Of course we would resent that. Of course it would be wrong, and that is why we are doing everything we can to help bring it to an end, and that is why it has got to end. There is no doubt about that." Thatcher wasn't a racist, and suggesting she was one is absolutely beyond the pale for any reputable encyclopedia, let alone Wikipedia.--Nevé–selbert 21:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Here another quote to interpret: "And it's the smokescreen people who come out in force shouting "racist" when we bring the immigration problem into the open and we try, despite the efforts of the rabble-rousers, to discuss in a reasonable way the genuine fears and concerns of many of our citizens. Let us tell those shouters, we're not going to have our deep and passionate commitment to racial equality smothered by the orchestrated clamour of the Labour Left. Dismissing anti-immigration as racism hasn't worked at all, has it? (For the record, I was personally opposed to us leaving, but even I understood some of the frustration felt by people disaffected by the numbers.)--Nevé–selbert 21:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Neve-selbert. The immigration issue is entirely different in UK than Australia--Australia for a long time had an explicit "Whites only" policy that is now being repudiated in 21st century rhetoric --but UK never had this policy and so the UK rhetoric is different. "Immigration" was a minor issue when she was PM. -- it gets merely one footnote in Moore 2:386n (he says that illegal immigration was "little mentioned." also p 1:460 has three words on it from 1979) Rjensen (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Are there equally well-referenced facts about work she did to combat racism? If there is, feel free to bring them here. The South African quote is interesting. Did it generate significant commentary in secondary sources? I am sorry Neve-selbert that you think I am making a POINT when I am just making a point, perhaps one you cannot refute? In any case it's better just to discuss here how you think the article can be improved using high-quality sources. Let's stick to that for now please. --John (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thatcher was certainly as controversial as they come, but insinuating that she's a racist is borderline mudslinging unfit for an impartial encyclopaedia. Thatcher was never regarded as a racist leader by anybody with sanity. Are there any neutral sources that describe her as racist? I seriously doubt it. Papers from the Margaret Thatcher Foundation are undoubtedly reputable; besides, these are her own words (the first quote was from an interview).--Nevé–selbert 22:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY. --John (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm still of the same opinion; this whole "rising racist public discourse" nonsense is certainly a disregard of WP:NPOV, and it's not even in quotation marks. It is wholly opinion, devoid of accepted facts.--Nevé–selbert 20:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Are there equally well-referenced facts about work she did to combat racism? If there is, feel free to bring them here. Meantime, your dislike of the facts about the subject are just that; one person's dislike. --John (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Stating that her approach to immigration was part of a "rising racist public discourse" is blatantly POV. It baffles me as to how you refuse to accept that.--Nevé–selbert 22:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Another quote: "I want to make it absolutely clear that we are all here tonight as fellow citizens of the United Kingdom. That means that each and every one of us, by virtue of being citizens of this country have equal rights, equal responsibility and equal opportunities, without regard to one's origins or class or background or race or creed. Citizenship embraces us all.". Again John, how on earth is it reasonable to refer to Thatcher's approach to immigration as part of rising racist public discourse? I have never heard the phrase before. Why isn't rising racist public discourse in quotation marks? The reference doesn't belong in the #Political legacy section at all.--Nevé–selbert 23:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY. What did the secondary sources make of that quote? --John (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

That quote doesn't refer to immigrants though does it? You won't find a good reference for her combatting racism -- she introduced a package of educational reforms designed, in part, to sweep away the influence of "anti-racism". (See, for instance: Anti-racism Bonnett)

You will, however, find many, many that note the "rising racist public discourse". Indeed, Thatcher's coded bullshit spawned the term new racism. (See: Bloody Nasty People: the rise of Britain's far right, Trilling "...she was reintroducing a racist discourse to mainstream politics"; or Racism in Europe: 1870-2000 MacMaster; or A Political Theology for the Black Church in Britain Beckford; or New Right Discourse on Race and Sexuality: Britain, 1968-1990 Smith; or Racism and Education: Coincidence Or Conspiracy? Gillborn; or any one of literally hundreds of others) Funny how the National Front and other far-right parties nosedived when Thatcher came to power, isn't it? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

You clearly have an axe to grind here, Hillbillyholiday. Besides, these assertions should be in quotation marks if they are to be included. With regard to the "coded bullshit" you are referring to (such impartiality), I assume you are trying to refer to the "anti-racist mathematics" she talked about in her 1987 speech to the Conservative Party conference. Now, to assume that, because Thatcher was opposed to such teaching methods, this automatically makes her a racist is absurd. She introduced the National Curriculum in 1988 in order to regulate what she saw as superfluous political correctness. Thatcher represented a majority Jewish community in Parliament, for crying out loud. With regard to your last point: no, it's not funny. Thatcher saw a threat from the National Front, and she wanted to appease those who sympathised with them by addressing their concerns. Immigration was as much of an issue then as it is today. She was merely addressing the widespread concerns of Middle England (however wrong you may think they were). Without those constituencies, she very well could have lost in 1979. She was being strategic, and with her it didn't backfire. With Cameron's promise of a referendum on the EU, it didn't work out so well. Ever wonder why the Conservatives are still comfortably ahead of Labour in the polls?--Nevé–selbert 23:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

No axe to grind here, just not a very big fan of racism, if that's not "impartial" then so be it. I never assumed "that, because Thatcher was opposed to such teaching methods, this automatically makes her a racist", I said you won't find a source for her combating racism. No idea what you're on about with the Jewish community stuff and the EU. It has been consistently demonstrated to you that multiple sources link Thatcher with rising racist discourse, and you haven't produced a single source to counter that. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I totally condemn racism (just like Maggie), but I still remain sceptical about Thatcher's relation with it. She has been accused of many things and such sources must always go through extra scrutiny. On the "Jewish community stuff and the EU", I just wanted you to gain a little perspective. It could be argued that Thatcher's approach to immigration today isn't that dissimilar to Theresa May's approach to it (post-Brexit). I just don't want people to assume that Thatcher had been racist, as I feel this does her and this article a supreme disservice. If anything, it was none other than Enoch Powell who fired up such discourse with his Rivers of Blood speech in the 1960s. However I wouldn't mind if rising racist public discourse is contained within quotation marks. I would note that the previous wording had been "perceived by some", and John removed the "some" reference as if such opinion was unanimous. That, I believe was wrong.--Nevé–selbert 00:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Again with the primary sources. Here's a primary one we could use from Hanif Kureishi's diary: "Frears and I were both moaning to each other about the Tory Election broadcast that went out yesterday. Its hideous nationalism and neo-fascism, its talk of 'imported foreign ideologies like' socialism and its base appeals to xenophobia."

"Perceived by some" is a little weasely. The current wording of "Her stance on immigration was part of a rising racist public discourse, which the film critic Martin Barker called 'new racism'." is supported by umpteen sources. I think we could expand on this, but you still haven't provided anything to counter it. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to explicitly counter it, I just want to make clear that there is no consensus among biographers and historians that Thatcher was a part of a "rising racist public discourse", in the same sense say Lenin's biographers assert that he was part of a rising communist public discourse. I suggest that we have a look at changing the wording to something like "Her stance on immigration has been regarded as part of a rising racist public discourse, which the film critic Martin Barker called 'new racism'.", or something similar along those lines.--Nevé–selbert 00:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want to add that "there is no consensus among biographers and historians that Thatcher was a part of a rising racist public discourse", then you are going to have to counter it. With sources. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 01:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

If I may, what do secondary sources make of Thatcher being part of a "rising racist public discourse"? Those exact set of words, John.--Nevé–selbert 23:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

So you haven't even done the basic research? This confirms that it is you who have an axe to grind here, and are advocating for an ideological position rather than trying to fairly summarise the sources. Thank you, Hillbillyholiday for the sources. I have a few more to share with you tomorrow but I am busy just now. User:Neve-selbert, why not spend time actually reading secondary sources about the subject rather than making ridiculous demands for scare quotes and the like? --John (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Listen John, I've searched Google Books for "rising racist public discourse" and I've found nothing, except for a YouTube reference that was clearly copied from this article. I just have a problem with the wording used, which I happen to believe is inherently misleading.--Nevé–selbert 00:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I have a bigger problem with the wording- I think Her stance on immigration was part of a rising racist public discourse is a garbage sentence. What part precisely, was it? If there is sufficient backing to say that her stance was racist, then say so. If her stance encouraged others to be racist, say so. Afaik, immigration policy was virtually unchanged in the 1980s, so let's clarify that her 'stance' on immigration was in speeches, not legislatively. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid.

Gravuritas (talk) 05:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thatcher as Prime Minister did not mention immigration in speeches (apart from 3 words in her first speech), and there were no major proposals re immigration during her years as PM. She did talk about it in 1978-1979 election primarily as a way to undermine the National Front (UK), which was wining conservative voters on the issue. the tactic worked, National Front did poorly, and Thatcher dropped the immigration issue. The Left said any mention of restrictions on immigration is always racist. Rjensen (talk) 05:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Its not that her stance on immigration restriction was racist per se, it's that she drew distinctions between white (e.g. Rhodesian) immigrants, and Black/Asian/ethnic minority immigrants. Her private papers for instance show that she wanted to prevent any Asian immigrants being given access to council housing, ahead of whites. (See: Margaret Thatcher complained about Asian immigration to Britain Telegrpah) --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 05:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

No. first of all that was a private comment and not part of public discourse. [we are discussing the line in the Wiki article that reads Her stance on immigration was part of a rising racist public discourse]]. Second it's a misquote. the source says "She thought it quite wrong that immigrants should be given council housing whereas white citizens were not." ie it's newly arrived immigrants being moved ahead of white full citizens that was her point. Rjensen (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Er, yes. The "whites-over-Asians" stuff can be found here: What is Thatcher’s Legacy to Black and Ethnic Minority People in the UK? (HuffPo). The Telegraph article says: "She made clear, however, that she had 'less objection to refugees such as Rhodesians, Poles and Hungarians, since they could more easily be assimilated into British society'. The meeting [with Lord Carrington, her foreign secretary, and William Whitelaw, then home secretary] was held about 18 months after Lady Thatcher made comments in a television interview that came to be seen as a watershed in mainstream politicians’ handling of race and immigration." I know what we're here to discuss, I'm just trying to provide some further explanation of Thatcher's attitude in the hope of expanding coverage of this topic. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 06:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it was Charles Moore who said something along the lines of "Mrs Thatcher did not have a racist bone in her body", but I do not recall the fine detail of the surrounding context. I'll see if I can find it (tomorrow at earliest). Mr Stephen (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

A quick Google search suggests that it may have been Carol Thatcher who was so described. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No sign of it. Memory possibly at fault, sorry. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I am pleased with the way Rjensen has copy-edited the hitherto dubious text. It is no longer misleading, I should think.--Nevé–selbert 23:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Outright calling Thatcher a racist violates WP:NPOV. However, you can write that she was ACCUSED of racism by the Australian foreign minister. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 06:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Where has it been suggested to outright call Thatcher a racist? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 06:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

a) Did Thatcher want to reduce immigration in general, or from nonwhite areas? Answer: zero--none whatsoever during her ten years as Prime Minister. b) Did Thatcher contribute to racist thinking during her term? Likewise no. c) They why did she raise the issue in 1979: She said herself the reason was to fight off National Front success in winning over Conservative voters. d) Her strategy worked and she helped destroy UK's major racist political force. Critics on the left have to ignore that major achievement or else revise their image of her as their Great Enemy. -- Rjensen (talk) 08:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure who this comment is aimed at (and I note the lack of accompanying sources for your opinion), but I have to say "she helped destroy UK's major racist political force. Critics on the left have to ignore that major achievement" is pure gold! --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 08:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The question is whether an editor is buying into a far-Left model of Thatcher as the Great Enemy. Look at some RS who do not buy the far-Left assumptions: 1) Paul Ward - 2004: "In 1977, the National Front secured 120,000 votes in the elections to the Greater London Council. Early the following year, the new leader of the Conservatives, Margaret Thatcher, moved to outflank them" see more analysis at https://books.google.com/books?id=FtAiLTYSpA4C&pg=PA128 2) for good analysis see https://books.google.com/books?id=tSYaWRrsnNcC&pg=PA52 3) for another good analysis see https://books.google.com/books?id=W9SuCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA226 4) here's a Thatcher quote: "Communism and the National Front both seek the domination of the state over the individual. They both, I believe, crush the right of the individual. To me, therefore, they are parties of a similar kind....We'll beat them into the ground on argument... The National Front is a Socialist Front" (April 1978) cite = https://books.google.com/books?id=vPatAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT63 Rjensen (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Which editor is "buying into a far-Left model of Thatcher as the Great Enemy"? She co-opted the NF's racist platform,[1][2][3] bringing it into the mainstream, and you think that should be celebrated as a major achievement? Well, this has been very fun and all, but I've got to attend a fundraiser for black lesbian amputees at my local anarchist co-op, and these effigies of Maggie don't burn themselves, you know. --Senior Citizen Smith ^talk 08:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Quite the contrary: The NF demanded ACTION and restrictions and she refused as PM to take any action. Vinen says the Conservative and Labour party positions on immigration policy in 1980s "did not really differ much." Rjensen (talk) 08:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, but we cannot say that this contribution to the racist debate was only ascribed to her be "Critics on the Left" unless there is good evidence to that effect. --John (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

ok try this: "From the Left, however, her positions were characterised far less as gentility but as patriarchalism, racism and imperialist nostalgia." Lester D. Friedman (2006). Fires Were Started: British Cinema and Thatcherism. Wallflower Press. p. xiii. Rjensen (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Are all of the thousands of sources linking Thatcher with racism from critics on the Left? I think many of her critics could be classed as liberal, albeit to the left of Thatcher. All the churches strongly criticized her 1981 Nationality Bill; the then-Archbishop of Canterbury spoke out against it in the House of Lords. Regarding apartheid, according to Tutu, her message to blacks was "You are utterly dispensable". (But perhaps they were just old men yelling at clouds?) There's obviously going to be a dearth of right-wingers who would be willing to criticize her positions as racist, though I suspect that off-the-record and after a few whiskeys Ken Clarke might. Geoffrey Howe tried to warn her in '83 that Britain was seen to be defending the racist policies of apartheid, and was ignored. And I wonder who or what John Major was trying to distance himself from when he said "We have to look particularly at our relationship with the ethnic minorities. It is not remotely goodish. We have to understand that and we have to act about that. And I think we have to confront what has gone wrong in the past."? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 14:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

C'mon, Hillbillyholiday. You clearly have a grudge against the prime minister: and these effigies of Maggie don't burn themselves, you know. Really? Absolutely pathetic, she has been gone for over three years now. I've read the points made above and frankly, given the context of the time her being part of a rising racist public discourse remains murky. I always thought it was Powell back in the Sixties who did this, not Thatcher. I suppose you could say she returned it to mainstream public discourse, but to say such discourse rose under her is really rather questionable. She was only Leader of the Opposition at the time, and as Rjensen correctly notes: immigration was not a primary issue during her premiership post-1979. If anything, xenophobic would be a more accurate term to use, but "racist" just isn't. It's a term that can easily be misconstrued by those who read the article, and for anyone who really dislikes the subject of this article, this is just another thing for them to latch on (once plenty of their other arguments have been confuted). We are talking about the 1970s here, and we need to appreciate the context of the time.--Nevé–selbert 20:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Good grief! --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have that much of an axe to grind when it comes to Thatcher's racism. Without wishing to veer too far off topic, in the grand scheme of things I believe she has a whole lot more to answer for than that. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 21:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hillbillyholiday makes the claim, with no sources: I think many of her critics could be classed as liberal, -- I think this misunderstands British politics. The "liberals" (in the American sense) were concentrated in the Labour Party and it agreed with Thatcher about immigration policy. (Thatcher in 1981 adopted Labour's position on citizenship for example) They disagreed on economic policy of course but that is not the issue here. the racism charges emanated from new left youth groups according to see "Are the Kids United?: The Communist Party of Great Britain, Rock Against Racism, and the Politics of Youth Culture" by Evan Smith, Journal for the Study of Radicalism (Sep 2011), Vol. 5 Issue 2, p85-117. Rjensen (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, 'liberal' can be defined in various ways. Liberals weren't, and aren't, all Labour supporters no matter which definition one chooses.

Given that the issue of immigration was now widely seen as politically settled in the wake of the 1981 Nationality Act, the Tory involvement with race via the One Nation Forum can be interpreted as a sop by Mrs Thatcher to her liberal critics at a time when they were being marginalised on most other fronts.Race And British Electoral Politics ed. Prof. Shamit Saggar

So how do you classify the religious leaders? Was Desmond Tutu part of a "new left youth group"? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 16:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC) (Er, you're asking me for a source for my claim "I think many of her critics could be classed as liberal"?!)

There was indeed a religious factor--a rather small one I suggest. "her 1981 Nationality Bill" was an close copy of the original Labour Party proposal. That is British politics had reached an overwhelming consensus on the topic in 1981--one that rejected National Front policies. Tutu was the hero of Britain's New Left. Rjensen (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This ghastly entity (it was not human) had much to answer for, and is thus justly reviled. Far from snuffing out the National Front, it valued having them at its right hand. It was also plain nuts. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

That comment says infinitely more about you than it does about her. She was an exhilarating human being, your disgraceful attempts to objectify her are just that. She is also justly adored and admired, whether you like it or not (she is regarded as polarising for a reason, look it up sometime!). Thatcher personally detested both the NF and fascism; she happened to believe that the less support they received the better. The rise of fringe third parties are never a good thing, are they?--Nevé–selbert 20:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

That video you've linked to is irrelevant. She had been in power for nearly 10 years then, and she usually referred to what she did as Prime Minister via "we did this/did that" instead of "I did this/did that". "We have become a grandmother" was just a blooper, a rather amusing one indeed.--Nevé–selbert 20:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I've just seen: Rjensen likes to use Charles Moore's biography of Thatcher! Very amusing. Kinda like citing some commie hack's hagiography in a discussion about Lenin. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

What's your point?--Nevé–selbert 01:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mr Stephen: With all due respect, but your revert is absolutely nonsensical. I did corroborate. What are you trying to infer?--Nevé–selbert 21:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I infer nothing. Have you got a reference for your remarkable claim? Mr Stephen (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course. Didn't you check the ref and the quote in the diff, Mr Stephen? (I find it rather remarkable that you find the claim remarkable, BTW.)--Nevé–selbert 21:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nope, too subtle for me. Whisper it to me. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be a case of WP:JDL, doesn't it? I struggle to understand your obstructionist sarcasm. Do you want me to include the quote here?--Nevé–selbert 21:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not trying to be those things. I don't want you to repeat the quote, I would like you to clarify the citation; and here would be a good place for me. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, so now you acknowledge the reference. Precisely what problem do you have with it?--Nevé–selbert 22:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

We must be talking at cross-purposes. My question to you is this. Where would I go to read (or listen to) the purported quotation that you added to the article. Is it in a book, a report, a newspaper article, is it available online, is it a paper copy somewhere, or what? Mr Stephen (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It's available here at the Foundation, Mr Stephen.--Nevé–selbert 22:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I will leave that with you for a while. Please don't add it again. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Why not exactly? You're speaking in riddles, Mr Stephen, and I struggle to comprehend.--Nevé–selbert 22:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you see it yet? Have another look. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

What on earth are you smoking? Please, just specify the exact problem you have with the ref/quote.--Nevé–selbert 22:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will spell it out: Mrs Thatcher is reading out someone else's statement. Mrs Thatcher had no such association at any time in her life. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Damnit. I apologise, I haven't slept in over 17 hours. I probably had another source in mind anyway but got mixed up with this one. Very sorry for the inconvenience there, Stephen. I should think I'll probably log off now...--Nevé–selbert 22:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

No harm done. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Date of her resignation

The dates in this section are as near as useless. 1 November, 13 November and 'the next day' ie 14 November are the only dates given. According to google she resigned on 28 November. Why isn't this information given? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.138.203 (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Her deputy Geoffrey Howe tendered his resignation on 1 November 1990; he gave his infamous resignation speech on 13 November. Michael Heseltine announced his challenge on 14 November. Fast-forward to 22 November, she announced her resignation to the country. She formally resigned her office the next Wednesday. What's the problem? The date 28 November 1990 is mentioned in the infobox, at the very top of the article.--Nevé–selbert 21:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Public image of Margaret Thatcher

@John, Rjensen, Hillbillyholiday, Gravuritas, Mr Stephen, and BowlAndSpoon:

• I've been giving some thought over whether we should merge some of the information at Margaret Thatcher#Legacy to a new article, based on Public image of George W. Bush. Given the huge amount of passion and strength of feeling a lot of Britons have about our former prime minister (more I'd say than Americans have towards President Bush), I think creating a new such article is imperative, describing the revulsion and admiration she evokes in practically equal measure, and where it stemmed from, in comprehensive detail. Any thoughts about this? Of course, I'm indeed thinking of creating said article myself, but since I'm only one user I would inevitably need a hand.--Nevé–selbert 23:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with selbert. I just watched the Meryl Streep film and it reinforces the point. Politics means Streep had to play a woman in the last stages of decay, The Picture of Dorian Gray style. Rjensen (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC).

There is a question of WP:UNDUE and as that section currently stands it is the proper weight for the article and has not outgrown it. By comparison, the Bush article is much more length. Is there a substantially more information you're looking to add if this was merged out to a new article? TiggerJay (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not asking for all of it to be merged, Tiggerjay, just some parts relating to public polling. By the time that is done, the new article should be expanded to comprehensively detail how polarising her public image is, I'd wager more than any other political leader in recent memory. I'm surprised such an article doesn't exist already.--Nevé–selbert 00:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping you from creating a new article. However, I see no point in just moving some of the section and creating a stub. If you plan to create the article, it should contain significant new new material. Thatcher would seem to be historically a larger figure than Bush and more controversial. She is more comparable to Reagan. TFD (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I probably should just add it at WP:REQ. Not sure exactly where it should be sorted under.--Nevé–selbert 18:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. TFD (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Drugs and blacks

I strongly defend mentioning this material in the article. Many news outlets clearly think it is noteworthy and of course it feeds into the discussion we were having a while ago about her and her administration's views on race. --John (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

According to this it was an aide who made these comments in a memo. Maybe we should include it in Premiership of Margaret Thatcher. This is Paul (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with This is Paul, I don't think that an aide's comments are relevant here. It should be moved to Premiership of Margaret Thatcher. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done included at Premiership of Margaret Thatcher#Cocaine production.--Nevé–selbert 17:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Layout dispute

Neve-selbert (talk · contribs) and I disagree on my recent edit. I believe the current layout of the first section is nonsensical:

• As the article currently stands, the text is compressed between the image and infobox, greatly impeding readability even on my 1440x900 screen.
• The image belongs on the right as per MOS:IM.
• The Thatcher infobox belongs properly in the next section ("Early political career"). Besides making room for the image in the first section, the infobox deals with her as a politician.

In addition, the revert also put the paragraph about aiding a Jewish refugee back in an out-of-place, non-chronological location by itself, when it properly should be integrated into the first paragraph in discussion of Thatcher's family. Ylee (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't deny you made some valid improvements to the readability of the #Early life and education section, for that I thank you. I have a 1366x768 monitor and there is a huge chunk of white empty space with the image and sidebar situated the way you put it. The image should be situated within said section, it looks out of place otherwise.--Nevé–selbert 00:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

ODNB article

Noting here that the new additions (January 2017) to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography included an article on Thatcher by David Cannadine. See here. I added the ODNB ID number to Wikidata here, but was less sure whether anything needs to be done on the article here. I looked to see if Cannadine is among the authors here (he isn't). In a case like this, where there are lots of published book-length sources, there may be little need to add a reference to a biographical dictionary, but there might be something worth citing from there, so I am mentioning it here anyway. FWIW, the entry for Thatcher is the longest of the 241 new additions and is apparently the third-longest ever, see here. The stats are actually quite impressive, and the entry will be published separately as a book. Maybe that suggests that it should be included here, as it sounds like a useful addition to the ongoing bibliography of published writings about Thatcher. Definitely at least worth adding to 'further reading', I would say. Have not read it yet, so not sure if it says anything new. Would be worth citing to give the opinions of Cannadine and the viewpoint on Thatcher that has been published in the ODNB. Carcharoth (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: as an active editor of this page. Do you have any thoughts on how and to what extent the new ODNB article (and book when published) should be incorporated into the article as a reference or suggestion in further reading? Carcharoth (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The more objective information we have on her the better, I believe. Pinging @John and Mr Stephen: any thoughts on this?--Nevé–selbert 23:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I haven't read it all as yet, but ODNB articles are usually OK in my experience. The online version should be accessible to a lot of people, but it's going to be a fairly short book. Certainly worth a 'further reading' entry until it's used as a reference. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I added it here in further reading. Annoyingly, the DOI used by the ODNB (I double-checked here) doesn't work yet. It seems it takes some time for the DOI database to be updated? Carcharoth (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

A-Class proposal

Given that WP:UK has no formal A-Class review process, I am resorting here to propose this article for WP:ACLASS status. Having had much experience with this article and having read all of it a few months ago, I can certainly vouch that this article comfortably meets the criteria prescribed, and serves readers an impressively neutral documentation of the life of the most controversial and consequential woman in British history. A review by an uninvolved editor would be much appreciated.--Nevé–selbert 19:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• @John, Mr Stephen, Gravuritas, and Rjensen: Any thoughts on this?--Nevé–selbert 20:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree that would be worthwhile. What's the process to request a review and grading? — JFG ^talk 20:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Sorry all, real life has got in the way of wikilife for a while but now trying to rejoin the club.

Gravuritas (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding "decisive" in the introduction

1983 is known to have been a decisive victory for the Conservatives so I am going to add it into the introduction where it notes her reelection that year. Please let me know if anybody disagrees. Myownworst (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Arms?

Didn't her arms used to be in the article? Eric Cable  !  Talk  —Preceding undated comment added 14:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Her arms are presently displayed in the sidebar, underneath the lead infobox.--Nevé–selbert 20:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Why 'short-term'

We currently have "Throughout the 1980s revenue from the 90% tax on North Sea oil extraction was used as a short-term funding source to balance the economy and pay the costs of reform". What does 'short-term' communicate here? How can one say "Throughout the 1980s...was used as a short-term funding source"? What's a long-term then? 50 years? "Short term" should be deleted. Gravuritas (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Just reviewed the history of the petroleum taxes and the flow of funds. The income flow was considerable extending into the late 1990s, so the comment cannot legitimately be limited to the 1980s. The sentence in its current form is no good.

Gravuritas (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. Britmax (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Margaret Thatcher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101206111841/http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/aia/chron.htm to http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/aia/chron.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150315235601/http://www.debretts.com/forms-address/titles/baronet/family-baronet to http://www.debretts.com/forms-address/titles/baronet/family-baronet
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160630181752/http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/04/demint-on-lady-thatcher-freedoms-champion to http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/04/demint-on-lady-thatcher-freedoms-champion

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Reputation

Whilst I have repaired the broken link in this section, I feel it would be better to link directly to the surveys given in Historical rankings of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom allowing readers to make their own decision. JRPG (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

She has a high reputation regardless of your politics. Whether or not people hold her in high regard is obviously up for them.--Nevé–selbert 11:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Critic of communism, Marxism and socialism

Why should "Thatcher was a strong critic of communism, Marxism and socialism. She made several references about them during her speeches and personal statements. She made a speech in a party conference in 1975 in which she said: "And I will go on criticising Socialism, and opposing Socialism because it is bad for Britain – and Britain and Socialism are not the same thing. (...) It’s the Labour Government that have brought us record peace-time taxation. They’ve got the usual Socialist disease – they’ve run out of other people’s money." not be included in the article? Although it's obvious she was anti-communist there are differences between the three ideologies (although closely related) and she was critical of them all. She made numerous of references in speeches, interviews and personal statements about the three ideologies. The last quote is often said as "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." I'm really surprised that quote is not included in the article, it's a well known Thatcher quote and was key to her thoughts.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Pls use quotes very very sparingly as quotes are incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and is why we have https://en.wikiquote.org/. Pls see MOS:QUOTATIONS.--Moxy (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sein und Zeit: Please consider editing Premiership of Margaret Thatcher and Thatcherism, particulars of this kind should prove more useful there.--Nevé–selbert 12:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect Moxy, I'm aware that there is a Wikiquote of Thatcher's quotes but surely at least one or two of her more well known quotes about left-wing policies could be used within the article? Neve-selbert, I'll have a look at those two different articles and see if anything can be added, thanks.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Influences

Thatcher was heavily influenced by Keith Joseph, Enoch Powell, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Should there not be a mention of this somewhere in the "Thatcherism" section?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

yes there should be. Rjensen (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

They are mentioned in the {{Thatcherism}} sidebar, under People.--Nevé–selbert 19:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a word on Pinochet

I am surprised her relationship to Pinochet is not mentioned here. I guess it must have been added in the past but removed by those who felt unease with it. I will check in the history page if any referenced information on this has been removed. Dentren | ^Talk 17:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

oops. ...your right....good addition.--Moxy (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Longest-serving PM

Nope. Wilson served longer (1964-76). But not, admittedly, continously. Straw Cat (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Wilson was Prime Minister for under eight years, Thatcher was PM for eleven and a half years. Britannicus (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Wilson was not Prime Minister between 1970 and 1974. That was Ted Heath.--Nevé–selbert 23:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Somerville College, Oxford

The recent edit here included the edit summary:

"Which institute person had attended this only matter not which award degree and everyone know that every constitutanal college of oxford award degree for university of oxford. That is why after somerville there is mention oxford. Oxford have a lot cons..."

I'm not 100% clear what that means, but just to clarify, "It is the University of Oxford, not the colleges, which awards degrees." see e.g. this. Is there a rule that has been applied consistently in the articles for all Oxbridge graduates which use Template:Infobox officeholder? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Quick look at Cameron, Wilson, Heath, suggests college + uni is standard.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I just wondered if there was a rule or some firm advice somewhere. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Think it would also be the answer Oxbridge grads would give if asked for their alma mater.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, good for them! I'm very pleased. But that's not really enough for MoS guidelines, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand that was unintentionally funny- glad to have provided a smile- but seriously, in the absence of specific MoS guidance then the way the person concerned would answer the question seems like appropriate guidance to me.

Gravuritas (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Lol. I have no argument with that. Just hankering after something more formal. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, guys, I didn't know that there is a duscussion about my edit. I supposed to mean that there is a lots of constitunal college in Oxford. Reader may be wanted to know that where she had attended specifically. Ominictionary (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Industrial relations

Moxy - you reverted my 1/2 sentence: can you explain your thinking here before deleting it again? The content I added is very brief: 'a shrinkage in coal that was occurring across the western world': and I sourced it right after with links to existing Wiki pages '(see History_of_coal_mining_in_the_United_States), and History_of_coal_mining#Germany).'

So it is sourced, and relevant and gives useful context to the otherwise abrupt jump to '... the National Coal Board proposed to close 20 ...'

Do suggest ways it can be improved.CanterburyUK (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Can not use Wikipedia as a source pls see WP:CIRCULAR. Plus the links add zero information on this person or the country she represented pls see MOS:OVERLINK.--Moxy (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Moxy - you say the links add zero information 'on this person' - but there about 520 words in this section -and the bulk are not about Thatcher! -eg 'The number of stoppages across the UK peaked at 4,583 in 1979, when more than 29 million working days had been lost'. If wiki thinks that this event warrants 520 words - mostly about WHAT the NCB did (and the miners): then it seems entirely logical to include just a few words on WHY the NCB did what they did -the context of coal worldwide. BUt if you are insistent that 520 is enough -can you suggest which non-thatcher text can be dropped, to make space for this important bit of content. (Note that when I first added the content I was PM'ed with support for adding it)80.189.49.209 (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Moxy - one other thing, this section is not always neutral - 'contributed to her triumph over the striking miners.[159]' could perhaps be better put as 'contributed to the miner's strike not preventing the closure of pits' ? Your thoughts? 80.189.49.209 (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Additional material and quotes

Not sure this needs to be added? What are the criteria for adding new material? The article is already quite large and has GA status. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

most quotes should be summarizes .....not GA level, MOS:QUOTES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 18:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

My [[4]] has been reverted by User:Rjensen with the reason: "dubious reading of primary sources--please use reliable secondary sources".

John Campbell has published a two-volume biography of Thatcher and is used frequently throughout the article. The second link is a quote from a speech and the source Margaret Thatcher Foundation is also used throughout the article. What exactly is the problem?--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a misreading of Campbell. Volume 2 page 95 Campbell states that Thatcher was moderate at first on the issue of denationalization, and that numerous others especially Keith Joseph and Jeffrey Howe etc were more important. Campbell quotes Howe, "it was always a conscious objective but for years it was never quite on the agenda" and Campbell adds that Thatcher exaggerated her early support when she wrote her memoirs. All these nuances get lost in what comes out in the text as a crusade to destroy all socialism. Rjensen (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like we have 2 problems .....random quotes over summaries MOS:QUOTES and the selective used of WP:Primary sources.--Moxy (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes -- As for the 1977 pre-prime minister quote about keeping Britain "from going red," I thin there is a misreading of a primary source. The text is ambiguous --- "red" can refer either to budget deficits, or to the Soviet Union, but there's no mention of denationalization privatization or socialism. [her speech notes read: you—to keep out of the red. me—to keep Britain from going red. Pink → British Empire—Persuade & convince Red → Soviet Empire—much more difficult to shake off.] so that's why we need a reliable secondary source to explain what she's trying to say. Rjensen (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it is misleading. Even in the 1970s she was constantly telling people that she was fighting against socialism.

I shall never stop fighting. I mean this country to survive, to prosper and to be free...I haven't fought the destructive forces of socialism for more than twenty years in order to stop now, when the critical phase of the struggle is upon us.

— Speech to Federation of Conservative Students Conference (24 March 1975)

And I will go on criticising Socialism, and opposing Socialism because it is bad for Britain – and Britain and Socialism are not the same thing...It's the Labour Government that have brought us record peace-time taxation. They’ve got the usual Socialist disease – they’ve run out of other people's money.

— Speech to the Conservative Party Conference (10 October 1975)

I can give many such quotes from Thatcher during the 1970s of her desire to get rid of socialism altogether. The concept of getting rid of socialism and the concept of denationalisation are two different things. She was moderate in the 1970s about certain things but she never hid her hatred of socialism. I think there should be some mention that by the 1980s at least she was hoping for Britain to be clean of socialism (in fact she actually said during a speech when holding up a brush "Madame Chairman, I presume this is to sweep Britain clean of socialism").--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

In political terms, the reference of "red" refers to socialism and communism, see the article Political_colour#Red.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia repeatedly warns against interpreting primary sources- --WP:Primary = A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts - it requires advanced scholarship and it is best left to scholars who study not a handful but thousands of these primary sources. The 'broom' quote for example--is that a promise of the future or a description of policies? what policies? is that a promise to get rid of the health services?? Campbell page 2:95 says that Thatcher in her memoirs admitted that in the late 1970s the idea of denationalization was so revolutionary as to be all but unthinkable....A pipedream" the fact is, Thatcher is contradictory, and like 99 percent of people who write memoirs, she misremembers what her exact position was at various points in time. Campbell does not rely on his memory, he matches what she said at the time, with what she was planning at the time, and what her advisers were saying at the time, and what all sorts of other people involved stated in their letters and memoirs. That's a lot of work, and Wiki really depends on that kind of work. One more point -- In political terms, the reference of "red" OFTEN refers to socialism and communism. Except it does not in this quote--her note uses it in two ways, family budget deficits in the red, and Red = USSR. Rjensen (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you seriously going to deny that Thatcher from her early political career had contempt for socialism? By the way, the desire of getting rid of socialism did not equate with getting rid of the health services (NHS). Thatcher by the mid 1970s made it explicitly clear that she intended to get rid of socialism. Of course the brush comment was about the future, she wanted to get rid of socialism altogether. I think you are confusing her desire to get rid of socialism and the actual set out plan for accomplishing it. Hugo Young wrote in his book One of Us: "When Boyson lamented that throughout the Macmillan years 'the country continued to advance step by step to socialism and more government control, more egalitarianism, and to a reduced-choice, heavily taxed economy.' he was voicing the theme, if not the explicit historical reference, of a thousand Thatcher speeches delivered after 1975." What are you on about? Her reference to "red" is undoubtedly in reference to socialism, the speech she mentioned that at the beginning includes several references to socialism including: "The essence of Socialism is more taxation, more interference, more government." Her speeches from the mid 1970s confirm that she publicly announced her desire to get rid of socialism.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

John Campbell in his second volume Margaret Thatcher Volume Two: The Iron Lady wrote on page 5: "The heroic picture painted in her memoirs of a radical reformer determined to shake the country from its socialistic torpor is not untrue; but her radicalism was in practice tempered by a shrewd awareness of political reality and a streak of genuine humility." On the same page: "Her long-term ambition, as set out in opposition, was nothing less than the elimination of what she called 'socialism' from British politics, the reversal of the whole collectivising trend of the postwar era and thereby, she believed, the moral of the notion."--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

As you say yourself, "if not the explicit historical reference". That's pure WP:SYNTH and WP:POV on your part? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thatcher meant a lot of different things by "socialism" at different times (and even in the same speech--it can mean the USSR (except Gorbachev), Communists (except the Khymer Rouge), new taxes (except her poll tax), loss of freedom (except in South Africa), nationalized industry (except health), any idea held by a Labour Party leader, by labour unions, etc. Shall we editors pick and choose or shall we let the RS do it? Wiki articles in my opinion are most useful to tell readers what RS say about her at different points in time. I disagree with your statement that "red" is undoubtedly in reference to socialism" -- I have a sharply different reading. [she first said "you—to keep out of the red." and I think that means a deficit in a budget] That's the problem when wiki editors try to interpret a primary source--and that's why we should focus on the RS like Campbell, Moore etc. and avoid primary sources. Rjensen (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The reliable sources clearly state that since the 1970s she openly stated her desire to get rid of socialism. She never once backtracked or contradicted herself on the idea. John Campbell stated this on page 5 in his second volume of his Thatcher biography. You claim to have a "sharply different reading" but you are just making things up and adding the word "you" when she never even said that. The exact quote: "And, Mrs Thatcher stated, in her opening remarks at a luncheon given by the Institute for Public Relations, “My job is to stop Britain from going red.”" She wanted to stop Britain from going red i.e socialist and communist. There is no ambiguity in what she meant by that sentence. Politically "red" is generally associated with left-wing ideologies such as communism and socialism. She stated that sentence before she even began her speech, she said it in the opening before any economical things were mentioned. We can rely on secondary sources, read the two sentences I quoted from Campbell that he wrote on page 5 of his second volume which confirm my initial edit to the article. There should definitely be something in the article that states she explicitly had a desire to get rid of socialism.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

So we're arguing here about the meaning of one single phrase of Thatcher's "opening remarks at a luncheon given by the Institute for Public Relations", yes? I really don't think this is the place for a speech-by-speech analysis of the development of Thatcher's political ideology. We're meant to be just discussing if and how the article can be improved, or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

you started this thread to complain that I deleted a quote “My job is to stop Britain from going red.” I did so because it violates the rule against interpreting a primary source (and because I think you got its meaning wrong. let's follow the Wiki rule: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts Rjensen (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Martinevans123, I agree. Do you have a problem with my edit that was reverted? John Campbell basically wrote in both volumes what I attempted to add into the article. I do believe that it is just simply User:Rjensen misinterpreting Thatcher's idea of getting rid of socialism (read the first response in this section and the inclusion of a word that was not even said by Thatcher). User:Rjensen, there is no rule to forbid someone from using a primary source - please do point out where the ambiguity is when the word "you" is not even used in the sentence which you used to somehow justify your "sharply different reading" and objection to the inclusion of it in article. She said the sentence at the beginning of the speech so it was not in relevance to anything other than political. I also added: "During the 1970s Thatcher made several statements in which she said openly that she wanted to totally eliminate socialism from British society." This statement can easily be confirmed by Campbell's two-volume biography of Thatcher in both volumes.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I personally don't have a problem with that statement. But I don't think we should be discussing our personal interpretations of sources here. Rjensen is perfectly right about the use of sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Granted. However, User:Rjensen is not right to add a word ("you") to justify an argument.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I really don't think you should add anything to this article until it has been agreed by all interested parties here. Otherwise you'll be straying into WP:3RR territory again. And you know where that went last time? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

In my recent edit I did not include the quote that User:Rjensen was disputing the most for some unknown reason.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that certainly seems to be unknown. If you ever find out, perhaps you could tell us. But WP:3RR is pretty broad (for better or worse). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Campbell is excellent at explaining her long-term goals versus her short term actions. Long term she always opposed "socialism" (it meant many different things to her) but short term as prime minister she started slowly --for example she rejected attacks on nationalized industry or the health system. Indeed she never attacked socialized medicine because it was too popular. Campbell states it: "took her the best part of two terms... To begin to frame an an explicitly Thatcherite programme." Iron Lady page 92. he adds that she attacked socialism in a very general way, and refused to be specific. Campbell calls her a cautious Crusader. That distinction is missing i think from the article. Rjensen (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You are confusing someone having an idea and an actual plan to carry out that idea. She had the idea of getting rid of socialism since the mid-1970s which is exactly what my edit stated ("Since the mid-1970s Thatcher stated publicly that she wanted to totally eliminate socialism from British society."). Yes, she did not manage to carry out the idea until she became Prime Minister but for well over a decade prior to that she was wanting Britain to be free of socialism. Thus, what is wrong with the inclusion of it in the article? In fact, it may be worthwhile including my initial edit but elaborating on the point you are also making with perhaps something along the lines of:

"Since the mid-1970s Thatcher stated publicly that she wanted to totally eliminate socialism from British society. However, it was not until the mid-1980s when she was Prime Minister that she had a clear programme to carry this idea out."

What does everyone think?--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

you don't tell us what she meant by "socialism" -- as I noted above, she was very ambiguous on the issue. sometimes it's Marx, sometimes modern Communism, then Moscow (but not China--she gave them Hong Kong!) sometimes British unions (even tho most were fiercely anti-Communist) and on and on. At first she did not think in terms of nationalized industries, then it became an obsession (but she protected socialized medicine). I note that apart from Campbell most of the RS downplay the Thatcher-Socialism theme. Campbell is very subtle and that subtlety -- eg long-run vs short run, hardline advisors versus cautious Thatcher-- should be included.Rjensen (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

So which source(s) would you use exactly, to support that claim? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Campbell Iron Lady is a very good source. To say "she wanted to totally eliminate socialism from British society" raises the issue of socialized medicine. It was highly visible to everyone in UK. She never attacked it and always promised to protect NHS; by 1988 she wanted it to be more efficient, but never actually did anything before her ouster. She never tried to "totally eliminate" it. So what did she actually mean--that's why we need RS to tell us. Rjensen (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The phrase " totally eliminate socialism" seems very clumsy. I'd avoid adding such a claim unless it could be sourced to a quote from a respected RS. Otherwise it looks a lot like WP:SYNTH, doesn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Rjensen, why do you keep mentioning the NHS? The political ideology socialism is not the same as various social stuff. Please do take time to read the quotes I have already posted. "The heroic picture painted in her memoirs of a radical reformer determined to shake the country from its socialistic torpor is not untrue; but her radicalism was in practice tempered by a shrewd awareness of political reality and a streak of genuine humility." On the same page: "Her long-term ambition, as set out in opposition, was nothing less than the elimination of what she called 'socialism' from British politics, the reversal of the whole collectivising trend of the postwar era and thereby, she believed, the moral of the notion." The source you call a "very good source" supports my statement.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

what do you think she really meant to say "totally eliminate socialism from British society" or was it merely a handy slogan? where does NHS fit in? Rjensen (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Um, yes.... so Campbell says "what she called 'socialism'". Is that the same thing that Wikipedia calls "socialism"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The NHS had no relevance to her desire to get rid of socialism. I hope you are not confusing the political ideology socialism with social care such as the NHS. The idea because "socialism" has the word "social" in it means that everything 'social' is socialist is not true. Why have you even mentioned the NHS? Have you bothered to read the Wikipedia socialism article? There are various definitions of socialism (like any ideology generally speaking). Nevertheless, Thatcher knew what socialism meant so yes her use of the word socialism fits the basic definition that the Wikipedia article defines as socialism. Another interesting quote from Campbell:

Mrs Thatcher's defiant assertion of the practical and ethical superiority of capitalism, her ringing defence of the morality of seeking to make a profit, and her evangelical presentation of politics as a clear choice between black and white, not messy, pragmatic shades of grey, was shocking, refreshing or naive, according to choice. 'We must fight socialism where we find it,' she proclaimed in May 1976. 'Our aim . . . is to destroy . . . the whole fallacy of socialism.

— John Campbell, Margaret Thatcher: Volume One: The Grocer’s Daughter, page 375

--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

If you read the text of some of her speeches which can easily be found via the Margaret Thatcher Foundation, she clearly defines what she meant when using the word socialism. You claim: "sometimes British unions (even tho most were fiercely anti-Communist)" - You can't be serious! For example, Arthur Scargill who led the infamous miners' strike is a Marxist. Most people that belong to a trade union are left-wing (generally socialist). You claim "At first she did not think in terms of nationalized industries, then it became an obsession (but she protected socialized medicine)" Why are you confusing socialism and social policies? You claim: "I note that apart from Campbell most of the RS downplay the Thatcher-Socialism theme" Really? Here are some books that describe Thatcher's hatred of socialism:

• Claire Berlinski. There Is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters.
• Charles Moore. Margaret Thatcher: The Authorized Biography, Volume One: Not For Turning.
• Charles Moore. Margaret Thatcher: The Authorized Biography, Volume Two: Everything She Wants.
• Richard Vinen. Thatcher's Britain: The Politics and Social Upheaval of the Thatcher Era.
• Ben Jackson; Robert Saunders. Making Thatchers Britain.
• Robin Harris. Not for Turning: The Life of Margaret Thatcher.
• Jonathan Aitken. Margaret Thatcher: Power and Personality.

Claire Berlinski wrote: "First, Margaret Thatcher was one of the most vigorous, determined, and successful enemies of socialism the world has known. There are as many species of socialism as there are species of insects, and Thatcher loathed them all."--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

editors rely on RS. I said " most were fiercely anti-Communist" and that's true, with Scargill the most famous exception. "Thatcher loathed them all" -- well no, she did not loathe the NHS -- and before 1979 she did not loathe nationalized industries. She loathed some Communists--but not Gorbachev, not China's Deng Xiaoping, not the Khymer Rouge. Are they not leaders of socialism? She often denounced taxes--and fell from power because she tried to impose her poll tax. Rjensen (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

As for NHS: to quote The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology (2008) article on "Socialized Medicine" re the UK's NHS "Indeed, it is often described as 'a socialist island in a capitalist sea.' ... It is perhaps remarkable, therefore, that such a libertarian political leader proclaimed that “the NHS is safe with us” (Thatcher cited by Klein 2002: 119). " Rjensen (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide a RS that "most were fiercely anti-Communist"? You said: ""Thatcher loathed them all" -- well no, she did not loathe the NHS -- and before 1979 she did not loathe nationalized industries."" Where are you even getting the idea that the NHS is a type of socialism? Please do provide a RS. She became more of an advocate of privatisation (she preferred the term 'denationalisation') after she became Prime Minister (read Jonathan Aitken's Margaret Thatcher: Power and Personality section "THE BEGINNINGS OF PRIVATISATION", page 380). There is a difference between doing business deals with political opponents and actually being close friends. She did business with Gorbachev, compare that to her much more personal relationship with Reagan. The poll tax certainly contributed to Thatcher's downfall but it was not the only factor. Anyway, this is actually getting a little bit off-topic, the issue of a RS has been questioned and I have used Campbell to illustrate my point, why should it not be included in the article? As I have said, a mention that such things were not put into action until she was Prime Minister is also worth mentioning. What about:

"Since the mid-1970s Thatcher desired to totally eliminate socialism from British society. However, she did not put this into action until when she was Prime Minister in the mid-1980s after she had developed a clear programme." You have described Campbell as a "very good source" and he clearly wrote that she had always intended to get rid of socialism, what is the dispute exactly?

The heroic picture painted in her memoirs of a radical reformer determined to shake the country from its socialistic torpor is not untrue; but her radicalism was in practice tempered by a shrewd awareness of political reality and a streak of genuine humility. Her long-term ambition, as set out in opposition, was nothing less than the elimination of what she called 'socialism' from British politics, the reversal of the whole collectivising trend of the postwar era and thereby, she believed, the moral of the notion.

— John Campbell, Margaret Thatcher Volume Two: The Iron Lady, page 5

This clearly verifies my initial statement. The inclusion of mentioning that the idea was not put into action should also be included and the reference you used of Campbell page 92 I would say is sufficient. I'm sure if another source is required then Moore would be fine. What do people think?--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

What you quoted is not proof that the NHS is a type of socialism. The source claims: "it is often described as a 'socialist island in a capitalist sea." Described like this by whom exactly?--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

you seem to deny it the RS that states clearly it is "often" called 'socialist island in a capitalist sea. try Kornai, From Socialism to Capitalism (2008) p 200: especially in Europe, Western and Eastern, where health care is more or less free and the health sector forms an island of socialism (or at best market socialism) in a capitalist sea, with the familiar accompanying features: shortages, queuing, waiting lists, forced substitution, bureaucratic allocation, and rationing." I argue that Thatcher knew NHS was socialism but it was much too popular to fight --typical politician misleading her audience. Rjensen (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I deny that the NHS is a type of socialism. The source you have used does not state that the NHS is a form of socialism which you have implied. I have already explained to you that there is a clear distinction between socialism and social things such as health care. As my initial response was "described like this by whom exactly?" You should perhaps check the source you quoted:

However, the term “socialized medicine” is one that tends to be used by “observers” (particularly North American observers) of the UK health service and it is less commonly heard within the UK itself (Webster 2002: 1). This may be because the British NHS is considered by many analysts to be a unique example of socialized medicine. Indeed, it is often described as “a socialist island in a capitalist sea.” In this respect it forms part of a welfare system which rests on collective provision, social justice, social equality, and democracy in order to mitigate the adverse effects of capitalism. The fundamental principles of the NHS are therefore: that it should be publicly funded (predominantly by taxation); health care should be universal and be provided on the basis of health “need” rather than the ability to pay; and services should be comprehensive in that they should include preventive health services as well as treatment for those who are ill.

A "socialized medicine" is not the same as being a form of socialism. Perhaps you could use the NHS talkpage and try and argue that the NHS is a form of socialism - be prepared to be laughed at by others for suggesting such a ridiculous thing, you have been warned! You claim Thatcher was a "typical politician misleading her audience" - except she never fought to get rid of the NHS but instead the elimination of socialism in British life. This is another example of you misinterpreting things to suit your agenda, you did the same with the quote "My job is to stop Britain from going red." when you argued that the reference of "red" was not referring to political ideologies associated with red i.e communism and socialism but actually meant "I have a sharply different reading. [she first said "you—to keep out of the red." and I think that means a deficit in a budget]" when she never even used the word "you" in the sentence! Perhaps we could get back to my initial discussion about the inclusion of her desire to get rid of socialism from British society and this was implemented during the 1980s when she was Prime Minister after she had established a clear programme to carry it out. I have asked about this a few times now and you have ignored me. Campbell has already been established as a reliable source and his two-volume biography confirms my statement. I will ask again, what about:

"Since the mid-1970s Thatcher had desired to totally eliminate socialism from British society. Once she became Prime Minister she set forth a clear programme to put her idea into action."

Thatcher said to the 1982: "Mr. President we are only in our first term. But already we have done more to roll back the frontiers of socialism than any previous Conservative Government." In the 1985 Speech to Conservative Party Conference she said: Mr President, step by step we are rolling back the frontiers of socialism and returning power to the people. Finally, in April 1992 she published an article for Newsweek (“Don’t undo my work”) [no such thing as Majorism] and wrote: "I set out to destroy socialism because I felt it was at odds with the character of the people. We were the first country in the world to roll back the frontiers of socialism, then roll forward the frontiers of freedom." Of course none of the quotes have to be included but this clearly shows that even during her first-term she was determined to get rid of socialism.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

James Joseph P. Smith, on 7 April the talk page here was at 11,656 bytes. It's now at 41,257 bytes. I'm sure no one doubts your sincerity. But I think folks might start to think you might just have a small agenda here. Unless a proposal to add something gets rapid approval at a Talk page, as an improvement, why bother quite so hard? There is plenty more encyclopedia in need of much more improvement than this GA article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not true that "Once she became Prime Minister she set forth a clear programme to put her idea into action." no RS supports that notion. She weas asked but always avoided the question 'what do you mean by socialism' and most scholars minimize the issue -- Moore for example (it's not in his long index). If the article uses "socialism" it has to tell readers what she meant by it--and that is a real challenge. Rjensen (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree. But is it really worthy all this effort? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans123 is right. Rjensen (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Further reading

Tagged the Further reading section with {{Too much further reading}}, as it looks like this section is duplicating a few sources that are already listed in the Bibliography section. For example, the Campbell and Moore biographies are sourced in both sections. Shall I remove them from the Further reading section or keep them listed there? --Neve~selbert 17:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

keep them= they are the two most important sources and having a reader miss them is much worse than seeing them twide. Rjensen (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)