Talk:Margaret Thatcher

GA review

Why come Margaret Thatcher in 1987 anyway? Is it or not?

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Margaret Thatcher/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Basically, this article fails Criteria 4 (neutrality), and, through this, Criteria 3 (breadth). Thatcher was a very controversial politician, at the time and after, but the article actively minimizes this controversy. Some examples include the downplaying of the issues related to her being forced out of government - the Community Charge gets little more than a paragraph, and the issues surrounding it aren't discussed - and the Legacy section only giving space to her supporters, and leaving out almost all views of her detractors.

It's really more of an apologia than a neutral article. 86.** IP (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

To give some idea of how badly this has been gutted, here's how the section on the Poll tax continued before this article was last delisted for neutrality...

Thatcher's system of local taxation was among the most unpopular policies of her premiership with working class and poorer citizens unable to pay the new tax and some being sent to Prison for non payment. The central Government capped rates resulting in charges of partisanship and the alienation of small-government Conservatives. The Prime Minister's popularity declined in 1989 as she continued to refuse to compromise on the tax. Unrest mounted and ordinary British people young and old took to the streets to demonstrate, the demonstrators were met with horse mounted Police in riot gear and demonstration turned to riots at Trafalgar Square, London, on 31 March 1990; more than 100,000 protesters attended and more than 400 people were arrested.

A BBC Radio poll in September 1989 indicated that almost three-quarters of the public were also against water privatisation. Despite public opposition to the poll tax and the privatisation of water, electricity, and British Rail, Thatcher remained confident that, as with her other major reforms, the initial public opposition would turn into support after implementation. A MORI poll for the Sunday Times in June 1988 found that more than 60% of voters agreed that in the long term the Thatcher government's policies would improve the state of the economy, while less than 30% disagreed; although income inequality had increased: 74% of Britons said they were satisfied with their present standard of living, while only 18% were dissatisfied.

The article has apparently been gutted for ideological reasons; a revert to an appropriate version may save it. 86.** IP (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Very little of the first paragraph is supported by the references. Is the second worth checking or is it equally rubbish? Mr Stephen (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't refchecked; however, the point still stands: This article has less negative material than it did when it was delisted from GA for being biased in favour of Thatcher. If references need improving, that's a second issue, but both NPOV and good references are needed for GA. 86.** IP (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same article? I think all of the article is verifiable against references. Can you give specific examples of material that you do not think is supported by references? --John (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

My comment above was narrowly regarding the quoted paragraph (beginning 'Thatcher's system of local taxation') from the old version, not anything in the article as it stands. (Though that has issues.) Mr Stephen (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Procedural comment. I note that this has been raised as an individual reassessment, so User:86.** IP has offered to make the decision to delist (or not) here, if s/he believes, after discussion and possible fixes, that the article does not meet the criteria. If s/he would rather another editor take this responsibility, or if the outcome seems likely to be disputed, it may be preferable to convert this into a community reassessment. Geometry guy 00:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. While it is always possible to improve an article, I would like to raise a note of caution here. This is a biographical encyclopedia article about Margeret Thatcher, the living person. It is not an article about her government, nor privatization, nor Thatcherism, nor the legacy of that government. Earlier versions of this article suffered badly from recentism and lack of focus: see the previous community GAR. The article was not "gutted" for ideological reasons, but rewritten for encyclopedic ones: it was riddled with poor sourcing and partisan material on all sides. Yes, there is a place for critical views in this article, and they should be presented with due weight according to reliable secondary sources. There are almost certainly some remaining imbalances in the article, as no article is perfect. If so, concrete examples should be provided, backed up by reliable secondary sources, and then we can improve the article. Geometry guy 00:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really find it hard to accept the argument that one of the most divisive Prime Ministers of the 20th century doesn't need to have any discussion about the opposition to her. A politician's career is inherently bound up in his or her policies. 86.** IP (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course she does: now what discussions would you like to add, and what reliable secondary sources should these discussions be based upon? Geometry guy 00:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with what appears to me to be User:86.**'s narrowly political focus, as this is a BLP. I also think that Thatcher is far too controversial a figure for this disagreement to be dealt with by an individual GAR. I've done very many individual GARs in my time, but this is definitely one I wouldn't have touched; it needs more than just one editor's opinion. And if User:86.**'s decision is to delist it, then there will inevitably be a community GAR anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the political issue is the neutrality problem. This article is well-written overall, but completely whitewashing her political career cannot be justified under NPOV policy. 86.** IP (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is about her, not her political career. NPOV has nothing to do with it. Malleus Fatuorum 04:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It absolutely does if Premiership of Margaret Thatcher is used as a POV fork to hide all the negative information. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Please remind yourself of the definitions of POV fork and Summary style before casting aspersions. Thanks, Geometry guy 10:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The GA review was a joke in my opinion, and caused me to ignore this page for quite a while in case I was viewed as disruptive when consensus said it was neutral. Take for example this section of the talk page on the exact version GA was passed on. There is the relevant section of the article on the exact version GA was passed on. Well look at that, despite the problems with that particular sentence being spelled out on the talk page at the time of the review the GA was passed???? It has since been fixed admittedly, but are we really supposed to take a GA review seriously when things like that don't even get checked? Kind of busy for the next couple of days, but after that you can expect another in-depth critique of this embarrassment of an article. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Those talk page comments (from 2010!) contributed to the delisting of the article, after which it was substantially revised, and re-reviewed, so why should anyone expect the discussion to be still relevant? Do you expect a review to trawl back through the talk page history of the article? Even as the editor posting that comment, you only found an issue that is no longer relevant! Do try to keep up to date, even if you are "kind of busy". I look forward to your in-depth critique, preferably based on reliable sources, and without hyperbole. Thanks, Geometry guy 10:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and say this isn't going to get fixed in any reasonable time, so delisted for neutrality issues. There's simply no way an article which minimises all discussion of a controversial political leader's controversial acts can be considered neutral or complete, particularly when it does include quite a bit of praise from her supporters. 86.** IP (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't going to get "fixed" in the rather peculiar sense that you seem to mean that word at all, ever. But it is of course within your prerogative to delist this article, and as soon as you do I'll be listing it for a community reassessment. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

References

Foreign policy not covered in main article

Under foreign relations, there definitely should be some reference to her dealings with Suharto, perhaps someone with better knowledge could attempt this? [1]

Also, maybe a mention of the Al-Yamamah deal? [2][3] Hillbillyholiday81 (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Does each sentence need a citation?

My understanding is that every sentence with some fact in it needs a citation. Is this true? Does the sentence "After seeing the Queen, calling other world leaders, and making one final Commons speech, she left Downing Street in tears." need a footnote? It seems to me to be controversial enough to require a citation attached to that sentence and so I put a CN tag on that sentence. Subsequently I received a message on my User Page -- User talk:Bruce Hall#Please be more careful -- that I was in error to put a CN tag on it. Was I? --Bruce Hall (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right but the cite may not always be at the end of the sentence but could be further on at the end of the paragraph. Keith D (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Citation overkill Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 12:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Full title of Baroness Thatcher

Just a genaral point on the introductory section. Her title, after accepting a peerage, is Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven in the County of Lincolnshire (as noted elsewhere in the article) - so shouldn't this be stated in the introduction? Zebranation (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's not have a "tributes" section.

I whole-heartedly agree with whoever wrote: <!-- Please do not add tributes from around the world. It is unnecessary and clutters the article. -->

These sections with condolences and little flags repel me. We should not have one. --John (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Malleus Fatuorum 13:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree 100%, I agree 0%. Those first reactions are important. --Borvo (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

They're non-encyclopaedic and you'll note not used on other pages. Wikipedia is not a memorial, it's an encyclopaedia. Canterbury Tail talk 13:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. For example, Ronald Reagan, her contemporary, or Pinochet her hero Basket _Feudalist 14:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

They may be important in a newspaper story, or a breaking news TV report, but Wikipedia is neither. There will be no tributes section. Malleus Fatuorum 14:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but with a small caveat. Obviously the soundbites from talking heads aren't notable and I honestly don't know why people add that kind of fluff to articles. But there may be one or two quotes that emerge over the next few days that might be useful in illustrating how she was viewed during her time in office and at the time of her death. Though having said that, any particularly significant quotes will likely appear in the slew of books that I'm sure publishers are ordering as I type. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Surely the reaction of other world leaders - especially those diametrically opposed to her politics (such as US President Obama and UK Labour party leader Milliband) - are relevant to how she was perceived? BealBocht (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Such immediate reactions are of little, if any, lasting value. So the answer is no, they're not. But you've clearly commented here without taking the trouble to actually read the article, as Milliband's reaction is already covered. Malleus Fatuorum 15:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you both mean Miliband (and he's not a world leader). I agree with Malleus and any quotations of lasting relevance will likely come from proper eulogies rather than kneejerk soundbites Jebus989^✰ 16:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Reactions aren't worthwhile mentioning. Everyone will express their sympathy, some will reminisce about her and the good old empire, etc. Responses that might lead to something, that's different, but it's hard to see how a reaction to this person's death will change anything in the real world. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's very simple, really: The statements on the occasion of her demise, will fit marvelously into the "quotes about her" part of the wikiquote site's article concerning her. Hence, the only parts I would include in the article, would be a small part about her funeral (which is yet to come as I write this), and, if it should happen, any special happening surrounding her demise (such as a major memorial- or good-riddance- party...). (Personally, I would attend the memorial version, but unless and until any of those parties occur, I see reason only to include something on her (currently future) funeral...) 195.204.138.41 (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I concur. Tributes and reactions make fine news and help fill up column inches, but they seldom are encyclopedic. As with any public figure, they are filled with platitudes and pitchforks, neither of which is worth mentioning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with what John, MF and others have said. It's just a bad idea. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

reads like conservative party propaganda

this article is biased and reads like it was written by a tory apparatchik. especially the criticism section where it reads as if all the problems she created with her policies were the fault of the previous government/s (same tory propaganda is in full swing again today) from the way this article presents the facts thatcher was barely controversial in any way and only did beneficial things to the UK. which is 100% opposite to the prevailing wisdom of sociologist who study britain. the article is lacking in facts and has a large dose of misinformation in it. 188.220.151.59 (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

<humor>The tories should participate as toros in a corrida.</humor> Advice: edit Thatcher and bring it into a neutral form. --Borvo (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is biased, and looks like it was written by a member of the far left who hasn't even read the article. Malleus Fatuorum 14:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Having actually read the article, specifically the section, "Political Legacy," I have to agree somewhat with the sentiment shared by the OP. I believe this article is NOT neutral and should be flagged as such. It glosses over the decline of union membership and unions that was caused by Thatcher's policies, and the entire article fails to mention Section 28, the anti-gay policy that had the effect of turning homosexuality into a taboo topic in schools and other government facilities. I'm certain that there are more deficiencies I have not yet found, but my non-union job only allows me a 30-minute break for lunch and I have yet to eat the one piece of fruit that I can afford working on minimum wage. Jbaumeister (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Then you believe incorrectly. That it does not reflect your own personal views is neither here nor there. Malleus Fatuorum 16:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but simply because you detest leftists doesn't mean they're wrong. Please come up with a better response than "because I said so." Possibly by examining the article honestly with regards to the criticisms mentioned, which you couldn't possibly have done in the two minutes between my post's timestamp and your response. Jbaumeister (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Where do get the idea from that I "detest leftists"? Try to bear in mind that I have a very good idea of what the article says as I wrote a good part of it and have read it many times. Unlike you, who only come here with your prejudices. Malleus Fatuorum 01:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the personal quarreling here, I concur that the "Political legacy" section is highly biased, especially the paragraph about unemployent being "a legacy of mismanagement from the previous government". The sentence is sourced twice, once with a non-consultable work, and once with a Guardian article in which I could find no trace of any argument in favour of high unemployent being attributed to the previous cabinet. I suggest that this particular passage be either sourced correctly written out. Manutaust (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thatcher's Views of Human Sexuality

Lady Thatcher has a rather remarkable history when it comes to human sexuality and I believe this should be noted. Not only did she publicly acknowledge that homosexuality ought to be decriminalized, she was one of the earliest Conservatives to do so. Yet her views are unclear and require further research as regards to Section 28, which could either have been a concept she embraced or a compromise she grudgingly accepted. Not being a particularly ardent student of her biography, I would be completely unable to tell how she viewed this topic. Given its relevance to the times in which she lived and its importance in illustrating the depth and complexity of her character, I feel that the article is lacking by the omission of this topic.

Furthermore, in a time when President Reagan was studiously ignoring or avoiding the topic of the HIV/AIDS crisis, Lady Thatcher supported definitive and humane steps to stem the spread of the disease. This also speaks to who she was as a person and as a politician, because these were not easy positions to take within the cultural and political contexts of the 1980s. Jbaumeister (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting enough, do you have any sources handy? I'm not sure of the chronology, but if she was one of the first world leaders to address HIV/AIDS, it may be worth mentioning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• • I have a multitude of anecdotals (which of course are useless here) from HIV+ gay men I know who have survived the plague to this point. I also believe I read it somewhere recently, but I'm not sure where. Possibly Cleve Jone's book, or a news article. I was sort of hoping someone else might have been more knowledgeable of the sources, but let me do some research and bring solid info back in a day or so. Jbaumeister (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Now, boys and girls, if you really want tributes...

...these are from the Guardian online. Yes, very disappointing for the faithful who will be unable to delete my additions in that mildly condescending and naturally arrogant dismissal of a newspaper that ironically always boasted about having helped put her where she was :p as the Guardian is perceived to conform to WP:RS... here ya go. PS: Think Galloway might win the prize for tactful tweet of the hour Of course, they're not all 'world-leaders' (ironically, very few today actually knew or worked with her), but they are well-known and easilly verifiable...

Peter Tatchell-'Margaret Thatcher was an extraordinary woman but she was extraordinary for mostly the wrong reasons.'

Ken Loach- 'Margaret Thatcher was the most divisive and destructive Prime Minister of modern times. Mass Unemployment, factory closures, communities destroyed – this is her legacy. She was a fighter and her enemy was the British working class'
Gerry Adams -'Margaret Thatcher did great hurt to the Irish and British people during her time as British prime minister. Working class communities were devastated in Britain because of her policies.'
George Galloway- 'Tramp the dirt down' & 'Thatcher described Nelson Mandela as a "terrorist". I was there. I saw her lips move. May she burn in the hellfires.'

Ken Livingstone- 'She created today's housing crisis. She created the banking crisis. And she created the benefits crisis. It was her government that started putting people on incapacity benefit rather than register them as unemployed because the Britain she inherited was broadly full employment. She decided when she wrote off our manufacturing industry that she could live with two or three million unemployed, and the benefits bill, the legacy of that, we are struggling with today. In actual fact, every real problem we face today is the legacy of the fact that she was fundamentally wrong'

And in case anyone thinks that's too one-sided....? A very supportive one from Robert Mugabe, of course- !!!
Basket _Feudalist 17:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela was a terrorist just as are Mugabe and his thugs today, as were George Washington, Patrick Henry, Ethan Allen, Michael Collins, the Stern Gang and the Irgun, and many others were, with their reputations burnished much later by posterity. Quis separabit? 22:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it was the ANC that were a terrorist organisation, not that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. Galloway must be making an honest mistake. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be pretty hard to consider the ANC a terrorist organisation and not consider Nelson Mandela a terrorist, wouldn't it? Formerip (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

NO. For better or for worse Mandela refused to condemn the violence of the ANC. That Mugabe is 1000 times worse is beside the point. Some ignorant people mistake Mandela for (or disingenuously compare him to) Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who genuinely opposed violence and was a true pacifist. I respect Mandela but the truth is the truth. Quis separabit? 14:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

celebrations of her death in the UK: Widely reported. Highly unusual. Why aren't they even mentioned?

As can be seen, https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=uk&tbm=nws&q=thatcher+celebration&oq=thatcher+celebration&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i53.13511.19613.0.19779.20.4.0.16.16.0.119.351.3j1.4.0...0.0...1ac.1.D8AtSNMIcpg#hl=en&safe=off&gl=uk&tbm=nws&sclient=psy-ab&q=thatcher+celebration+dead&oq=thatcher+celebration+dead&gs_l=serp.3...23000.24453.1.25259.5.5.0.0.0.0.121.531.2j3.5.0...0.0...1c.1.8.psy-ab.BqVOLf2AkMY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44770516,d.d2k&fp=e7cea0d1593531a2&biw=1440&bih=737 a lot of newspapers and other reliable news sources are covering the outpourings of jubilation at Thatcher's death. Few major British news sources are not covering this.

I cannot see how it isn't a straight violation of POV not to mention them. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Not all garbage printed in the rag trade require coverage. Quis separabit? 20:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

What you can't see is that what is covered by news reports isn't the same as what ought to be covered by an encyclopedia article. Malleus Fatuorum 18:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Some idiot attempting to organise a party on Facebook is not the sort of thing an encyclopaedia needs to be covering. We're not a news service. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Froth like this is for Facebook. Maybe Wikinews would cover it. Unless it will be important in 10 years time we shouldn't mention it. --John (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Northern mining towns aren't as sad, per this. There was quite a decent news segment earlier on the BBC with one ex-miner saying people will be opening the champagne tonight. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm waiting on a response from The Style Council. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Years active - 1983-1989. Ooooh, Maggie wouldn't like that. Eighties! We're living in the eighties... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If these threats of street parties and so on actually come to anything then of course we ought to cover it, but have they? Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This nonsense reduces Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. Publish this garbage in An Poblacht. Quis separabit? 20:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

They have: [4]. Funny, nothing about any celebrations...--Auric talk 20:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC) ::Give it time, Auric, there will be. Quis separabit? 22:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"one ex-miner saying people will be opening the champagne tonight.". There is a delightful irony there somewhere. Leaky Caldron 20:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I know many people who have said they will be celebrating her death prior to today. It will probably deserve a mention at some point once multiple reliable sources report it. I suspect someone will start Funeral of Margaret Thatcher at some point, and it should go there.Martin451 (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If any of it looks like it's going to be of lasting significance, it will be covered, but most reactions (pro or con) to a death don't have any lasting significance. At present, somebody trying to organise a party on Facebook is no more noteworthy than some talking head saying "she was the greatest thing since sliced bread". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur with MF, John and others have said. It's not worth mentioning. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I do not concur. Generally, when a famous person dies, we see an outpouring of praise, or at very least neutral comments, regardless of how that person was regarded when alive. Notable exceptions include Hitler and Ted Bundy -- but Margaret Thatcher was not a sadistic sociopath or anything remotely similar. The fact that celebrations are erupting is highly unusual, and therefore notable. I do agree, however, that we should wait for any lasting significance, and even then probably a single sentence will suffice. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well that raises an nteresting point: have any celebration occurred? I haven't been following this fir the last few hours, but last I heard was that some bloke in Glasgow was trying to organise a street party and Ken Livingstone and George Galloway (not exactly politicians with unblemished records and both known for leaning to the left) were using it as an opportunity to take a pop at the Tories. (And I'm all for having a pop at the Tories, just not in an encyclopaedia). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The death of Thatcher and the controversies surrounding it are going to be a significant fact of historical record. The fact that some mourned while others celebrated her death owing to her achievements and less palatable actsa in Government is a highly notable issue epitomising views on her premiership. Crimsone (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There isn't any controversy about her death. She was old. She was ill. She died. Leaky Caldron 21:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody said there was controversy ABOUT her death - but there is controversy surrounding it. The papers are full of it... the Telegraph complaining of abusive comments about her, the Guardian pointing out that "don't speak ill of the dead" doesn't apply here... the controversy is ABOUT how people are reacting to her death. Crimsone (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The papers are full of it because they have to write something to appear to have something to say—it's the same with any important story when there's not much to say beyond "she's dead". So they look for something to fill their columns; that it's utter drivel is of little concern. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well street parties have made the main stream press.[5]--Salix (talk): 22:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Very sad to see how low the British have fallen. Too far I suspect to get up with their dignity intact, if at all. Quis separabit? 22:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, but how many tens (hundreds?) of thousands of news articles have been written about Margaret Thatcher? Do they all get included in this article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The last time British citizens have spotaneously gathered in the streets to celebrate someone's death wasn't, say, Bin Laden, or Colonel Gadaffi, or Saddam Hussein - let alone their own PM, Harold Wilson, or Ted Heath, say. It was Hitler. But apparently this event isn't significant - that tells you something about how the views of the British people are deemed to not matter compared to comments by the leaders of the world. Ever heard of democracy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.208.88 (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's insignificant as far as wikipedia goes. I should also say statements by David Cameron and Ed Milliband are also not significant and should be removed. Some kind of assessment of her polarizing nature may be warranted, but only in the Legacy section where that is already touched on. Hzh (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of death sections isn't to eulogise. It's as clear as it was predictable that there have been diverse reactions to this happy event, and the article should reflect that. Soberly. It certainly shouldn't call it a "happy event", for example. But its a distortion of reality as it is. Formerip (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The criticism of Thatcher, and celebrations of her death have only been getting more coverage, and more detail.

After an 800-strong party in Glasgow in celebration of her death], and another in Brixton, amongst others, and even some MPs speaking out in celebration of her death. ([6]). This is is not normal, but all criticism of her is being systematically removed. The miners hated her, and still hate her. [7], [8]. They had a say in the section on her death for a while, but even that got removed.

I don't see how bland quotes from Cameron, the Queen, and Milliband, standing alone, can be considered NPOV. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• She isn't at room temperature yet and you are focused on creating a laundry list of negative responses. Once anything of any significance is said, enough to be quoted more than once or twice, then it could be considered. We aren't the news or a blog, we are an encyclopedia. It is ok if we don't publish a quote within 20 minutes of it being said. If you need your information fresher, turn on the television. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• It doesn't help your case when you exaggerate the number (250 is the number in the news report, not 800). Hzh (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Knew I should've double-checkedfont face="Georgia">[[User:You Can Act Like A Man|. I was juggling sources at the time, and thought I remembered. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

What is this madness about the Thatcher "street parties" not being relevant? They are being covered in the national press. Hundreds of people turned out to them. They are, like it or not, very much a significant event and there is no more appropriate place to right about them than in Margaret Thatcher's Wikipedia article - where we are supposed to be impartial and accurate, not somehow obliged to be "tasteful" and censor events. Zcbeaton (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• And they may be in time, but the first morning edition hasn't even come out and our duty is to summarize facts after they happen, not provide live coverage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd agree with that if it weren't for the fact that these events have already occurred, and they have already been covered. It has been hours since national newspapers like The Herald published their pieces on the street celebrations. Why must we wait for the same articles to appear in a newspaper before we can write about them - especially when it'll be the web coverage we'll be citing? Zcbeaton (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't put everything in its article, it can't say Falkland Islanders mourn her death (and there are news articles on that) just as much as it can't say some people celebrate it. Nothing about being "tasteful", a simple matter of judging whether something is significant enough to put in there. (And as I said, statements by David Cameron or Ed Milliband, or indeed the Queen, aren't really significant and should be removed too.) Hzh (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia can't put everything in its article. However, I suggest that this is significant enough to warrant at least a sentence! I think the comparison to the Falklanders is disingenuous, as is the comparison to simple politicians' reactions; these were actual "events" that followed her death, which were unusual and widely reported in the British media. I don't think a single sentence along these lines would be undue:

In the immediate aftermath of her death, there were efforts through social media to organise street parties in celebration. These took place in Glasgow's George Square and Brixton, despite opposition from local authorities.

- Zcbeaton (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Actual events, yes, but minor events in the greater scheme of thing. Organizing gatherings or parties with large number of people attending happens regularly in the UK, nothing significant about it. People organized huge number of protests against her in her lifetime, it is not surprising that people should organize parties when she died. More surprising that there weren't more parties considering how polarizing she was. I have certainly heard enough talk in the UK about celebrating when she died before she actually did to know that something like this that would be organized. I think that if there is a separate article about Thatcher's legacy and public perception of her, then this might be included in such article, but as far as this article goes, it is not that important to warrant inclusion in this article. Hzh (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Would it warrant mention in Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher? Zcbeaton (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why not, and if these celebrations prove to be widespread a sentence in this article would probably be appropriate as well. Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. The key is "time". We don't have to have the article up to the minute, and we serve our readers best by being deliberately cautious, and not publishing something that will be retracted or modified in two hours time. An encyclopedia should allow some of the dust to settle before publishing "facts" about an event. Even a day or two is better than echoing the latest tidbit from the television. We can't possibly know what will have lasting effect less than 24 hours after her death, and all we care about is what does have a lasting effect, so we tread lightly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)'

Exactly not. The quotes praising her are just as transitory, and far more WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. To say that near-universally-reported events can't be included until all interest in Thatcher has died down amounts to an attempt to POVpush while people are paying the most attention they'll pay to her in the short term. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid what you tried to keep putting in the article do suggest to me that you are trying to push a POV. Hzh (talk) 08:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

When the article is being written as hagiography, I see no reason to add additional sources praising her. If the article ever even came close to having an excessively negative tone, then I would find positive sources to balance, but there is little to no chance of me needing to do that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

As your input is uniformly unhelpful, that can only be good news. MalleusFatuorum 16:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No POV there then!!! Basket _Feudalist 17:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

By all means put it in that article, although I'm not sure if her death and funeral is worthy of an article, let alone two. Hzh (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher article existed before Reaction to the death of Margaret Thatcher. I've proposed a merger. Zcbeaton (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've trimmed this back again. Facebook is not a source and detailed laundry-lists of reactions, positive, negative or indifferent can go in the daughter article. --John (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Funeral Reference

Why was the official press release regarding funeral information deemed to be a less important reference than a BBC article? I think we should go to the source, not a third party for information on the funeral plans. NDomer09 (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Please read WP:Sources. By definition, an encyclopedia is a summary of facts based on 3rd party citation, not a parroting of primary sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• Right. Also, the formatting was incorrect, and in a Good Article those things matter. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• Then fix the formatting. I don't think that an official press release regarding a series of events is going to be biased and need to be confirmed by a third party. I'm not going to fight the edit, I just think that is an odd policy in this case.NDomer09 (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Basically, we should be reporting on what's happened, not on what it's anticipated might happen; there are newspapers and TV news channels for that kind of stuff. Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a point of clarification about policy: Primary sources are allowed, but must be used sparingly and with care. The source must directly support the content without any original research. Also, articles should be based primarily on secondary and tertiary sources. See WP:PRIMARY for more information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a good article about one of the most important prime ministers of the 20th century.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

it seems the article was vandalised — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.114.141.203 (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 April 2013

Please remove the third sentence of the second paragraph, as it is simply vulgar name calling, not to mention not having to do with the rest of the paragraph at all. 66.42.163.56 (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The sentence you refer to says that she became Prime Minister in 1979, which she did. It is neither irrelevant nor name calling. Are you sure that's what you meant? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 00:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The sentence (quite rightly) objected to has been removed by Jeremy68. It's a crying shame that some people feel the need to add material like that. Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrong birth year for Denis Thatcher

Spouse(s) Denis Thatcher (1951–2003, his death)

It should be 1915 instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:149:4:1402:D0AD:ADCE:494A:CB5F (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe the 1951 refers to when he became her spouse. NDomer09 (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It does indeed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Reaction to death

Currently there is no international perspective beyond Ireland in this section. There are a number of quotes here that may be useful for rectifying this situation. 86.171.43.156 (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a situation that needs to be rectified. Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That's just where you are wrong. 86.171.43.156 (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that's just where you're wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No, That's just where YOU'RE wrong!!! 24.150.131.48 (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Partying in the streets?

The article currently says "Some reactions were less sympathetic..." but I wonder if that is understating the reactions that are being seen. The Australian (a rather right-wing newspaper) has the heading Margaret Thatcher dies: Some pay tribute while others party in the streets. Should something like this be included? (And no doubt there will be a growing chorus of disapproval to this reaction...) StAnselm (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Have there actually been any parties? Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the article? In Brixton, holding notices saying "Rejoice - Thatcher is dead", about 200 people gathered in the neighbourhood, a hotspot of alternative culture, and toasted her passing by drinking and dancing to hip-hop and reggae songs blaring from sound systems. StAnselm (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I've never been to a party where people gather holding notices, have you? Malleus Fatuorum 03:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I certainly think drinking and dancing qualifies as a party... StAnselm (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you hold up banners at the parties you go to? Malleus Fatuorum 04:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

In any case, that's irrelevant - it was described by a reliable source as a party. StAnselm (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not it is one's idea of a "party", it is certainly unusual (in the Western world) and notable to celebrate the death of a political dignitary in such a way. This does bear mentioning, does it not? It certainly speaks to her character and the way she was seen by the public, which is to say that she was a controversial figure to say the least (not that her death was controversial). See also "Margaret Thatcher and misapplied death etiquette" in the Guardian and innumerable comments about "you either loved her or hated her". —sroc (talk) 05:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It speaks of her polarizing nature and that assessment should be done in the Legacy section. The section on her death is becoming some place where people are trying to push a particular POV, so I'm removing all reactions and events since they aren't really important. Hzh (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you spill my pint? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Classic! Basket _Feudalist 13:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that's what I call a party: loud music, vandalism, fighting the police and rioting. 13:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The large scale celebration of her death

There have been parties all over Britain in celebration of Margaret Thatcher's death, as reported in numerous reliable sources in mainstream media. Of course this should be mentioned in the article. The chant "Maggie Maggie Maggie! Dead dead dead!" has been reliably reported to have been chanted at many of these celebrations, e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. etc. etc. - a wide range of different sources in newspapers arranged across the political spectrum.

Celebrating someone's death is not something that most human beings like to do, and this has happened with Margaret Thatcher because she was so hated by so many people, and remains hated, even 23 years after she left office. The basic point in the relevant section of the article should be that there have been many parties to celebrate her death - and a list should be given of some of the towns and areas where they have been held, with links to reliable sources. The list includes London, Glasgow, Bristol, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Brighton, Bradford, Birmigham, Hull, Manchester, Edinburgh, Dundee, Cardiff, Carlisle, Bury St Edmunds, Cambridge, Doncaster, Falmouth, Hastings, Leicester, Luton, Oxford, Norwich, Nottingham, Newcastle, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Rotherham, Sunderland, York, Leicester, Warrington, Aberystwyth, Swansea, Belfast, Dublin, Venice, Barcelona, and Stockholm. There has never been anything like this before.

It should also be mentioned whereas when she was prime minister, "Maggie Maggie Maggie! Out out out!" was a well-known chant, now, according to reliable reports (see above), this has changed to "Maggie Maggie Maggie! Dead dead dead!" This chant has been reported in so many sources to have been used at so many of the street celebrations, that it should obviously be mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Something is clearly going on here that is important, notable, and significant. Some people may welcome it, others may think it's ugly and horrible, but it is happening, it is being reliably reported, and ignoring it would be ridiculous.Crebble (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The Thatcher government encouraged growth in the finance and service sectors to compensate for Britain's ailing manufacturing industry.

Do we have any citations/sources that show that Thatcher connected these different economic areas and really liberated the finance sector because of an ailing manufacturing sector? Cinquero (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Bulgaria, formerly a part of the Soviet Union

I am going to walk away for a while before I break 3RR or any other fundamental norms. It'd be great if I could rely on others to protect the article against the test edits of the illiterate and the ignorant. --John (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Not too much chance of that I don't think. Malleus Fatuorum 13:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

What is all this nonsense about the National Front?

In the domestic affairs section of the article there is a great deal about the National Front. This party has only ever been a tiny, marginal party in the UK whose support peaked at 0.6% of the vote in 1979. This is contrary to the article which says the Conservatives in 1979: "..attracted voters from the National Front, whose support almost collapsed."

I suggest the first paragraph on Domestic affairs is corrected to read:

Thatcher was Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister at a time of increased racial tension in Britain. Her standing in the polls rose by 11 percent after a January 1978 interview for World in Action in which she said "the British character has done so much for democracy, for law and done so much throughout the world that if there is any fear that it might be swamped people are going to react and be rather hostile to those coming in."; and "in many ways [minorities] add to the richness and variety of this country. The moment the minority threatens to become a big one, people get frightened."[64][65]. In a meeting in July 1979 with Lord Carrington (the Foreign Secretary) and William Whitelaw (Home Secretary) she objected to the number of Asian immigrants,[68] in the context of limiting the number of Vietnamese boat people allowed to settle in the UK to fewer than 10,000.

The National Front is widely reviled in the UK (eg: by the other 99.4% of the electorate in 1979) and I cannot help but think that linking Thatcher to the NF is a weasely smear.Quiduck (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's meant like that; there certainly was (and therfore may still be) a perception that that was the case at the time.
In fact (on edit) she made that linkage herself. This from the WP National Front article (not in itself a WP:RS but does cite one):

At the same time, Margaret Thatcher as opposition leader was moving the Tory party back to the right and away from the moderate Heathite stance which had caused some Conservatives to join the NF. Many ex-Tories returned to the fold from the NF or its myriad splinter groups, in particular after her "swamping" remarks on the ITV documentary series World In Action on 30 January 1978:

"... we do not talk about it [immigration] perhaps as much as we should. In my view, that is one thing that is driving some people to the National Front. They do not agree with the objectives of the National Front, but they say that at least they are talking about some of the problems.... If we do not want people to go to extremes... we must show that we are prepared to deal with it. We are a British nation with British characteristics."

Basket _Feudalist 10:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You could add this text if you wanted, let her own words describe her. My objection is that there is a smear by an implied association in the text that reads like a political attack rather than an encyclopedic article. It is just not professional. Quiduck (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

But the NF, at its peak in 1979 was only supported by 0.6% of the electorate. Come on, be professional about this. I never voted Tory but this is just weasely. Quiduck (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It's well-referenced and was present when the article passed GA. I propose we keep it. --John (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

But it is factually inaccurate, the NF was at its apogee in 1979. but the article says "In the 1979 General Election, the Conservatives attracted voters from the National Front, whose support almost collapsed." Check the article National Front. Look, you may hate Thatcher but this is an encyclopedia, to introduce a party that was a tiny minority as if it was a major part of Thatcher's popularity is simply wrong. Also it is obvious why it has been done - implied smearing. To be fair you should at least mention that the NF, at its peak in 1979, was only supported by 0.6% of the electorate. It was not like the French National Front but the article gives the impression that this was the case. Quiduck (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You may think you know better than the academic sources we used in writing the article, but Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Find the sources that back up your opinions and bring them here so we can take a look. --John (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that I know better than those sources, I am saying that their inclusion in this encyclopedic article is inappropriate. Quiduck (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it could be better phrased, but the sentiment is correct. The sources indicate that MT's remarks and stance on immigration led to the NF's support at the polls being wiped out. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It is immaterial whether the NF was wiped out or at their peak, they were such a tiny minority that they do not desreve a mention. (In fact the NF were at their peak in 1979: National_Front_(UK)_election_results, National Front despite Thatcher but my point is that apogee or perigee they are too small to mention, a shift of 30% of NF voters to the Tories would only add 0.3% of the electorate to Tory support). The edit I am suggesting keeps all the text about immigration. This was the suggestion:

Thatcher was Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister at a time of increased racial tension in Britain. Her standing in the polls rose by 11 percent after a January 1978 interview for World in Action in which she said "the British character has done so much for democracy, for law and done so much throughout the world that if there is any fear that it might be swamped people are going to react and be rather hostile to those coming in."; and "in many ways [minorities] add to the richness and variety of this country. The moment the minority threatens to become a big one, people get frightened."[64][65]. In a meeting in July 1979 with Lord Carrington (the Foreign Secretary) and William Whitelaw (Home Secretary) she objected to the number of Asian immigrants,[68] in the context of limiting the number of Vietnamese boat people allowed to settle in the UK to fewer than 10,000.

The focus on a tiny minority party that had and has no Parliamentary seats and has never had significant support is unprofessional. Let Thatcher condemn herself, she does not need the addition of implied smears. Quiduck (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, are you from the past??? Did you even read what I wrote? The source is -HER- -OWN- -SPEECH- Capisce?!?! Basket _Feudalist 11:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I said I would be happy for you to include it in the Domestic affairs section, it is Thatcher's own words.. It is the smearing by implied association with the NF that is unprofessional. The reason this quote has not been used is that Brown, Cameron and even Miliband have said similar things recently about driving voters into the arms of the BNP. Quiduck (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 April 2013

In the Domestic affairs section of the article there is a great deal about the National Front. This party has only ever been a tiny, marginal party in the UK whose support peaked at 0.6% of the vote in 1979. This is contrary to the article which says the Conservatives in 1979: "..attracted voters from the National Front, whose support almost collapsed."

I suggest the first paragraph on Domestic affairs is corrected to read:

Thatcher was Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister at a time of increased racial tension in Britain. Her standing in the polls rose by 11 percent after a January 1978 interview for World in Action in which she said "the British character has done so much for democracy, for law and done so much throughout the world that if there is any fear that it might be swamped people are going to react and be rather hostile to those coming in."; and "in many ways [minorities] add to the richness and variety of this country. The moment the minority threatens to become a big one, people get frightened."[64][65]. In a meeting in July 1979 with Lord Carrington (the Foreign Secretary) and William Whitelaw (Home Secretary) she objected to the number of Asian immigrants,[68] in the context of limiting the number of Vietnamese boat people allowed to settle in the UK to fewer than 10,000.

The National Front is widely reviled in the UK (eg: by the other 99.4% of the electorate in 1979) and I cannot help but think that linking Thatcher to the NF is a weasely smear. Quiduck (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template.

There is obviously not going to be a consensus. Thatcher was not a fascist but I suppose there are limits to the professionalism and objectivity of Wikipedia contributors. This is my last comment - I have to go to lunch. Bye.. Quiduck (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You appeared to be out to lunch already. No-one but you has ever suggested she was a fascist. And you appear to purposely misunderstand the simplest statements made to you on the subject. Bon appetite! Basket _Feudalist 12:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Free school milk

The article currently implies that removal of school milk was Thatcher's personal policy. This is not true as we now know from cabinet papers of the time. For reference, see the Independent newspaper here - "What is little known is that Mrs Thatcher actually opposed ending school milk and was forced into the position by the Treasury". Perhaps we should also note in this section the popular belief that she was responsible for removal of all free milk for schoolchildren and point out that this is not correct - milk for secondary school children was withdrawn by Ted Short and for 5-7 year olds by Shirley Williams. --Prh47bridge (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If that's true, then go ahead! Basket _Feudalist 12:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Done but it could do with a citation for the popular belief that Thatcher abolished all free school milk. I can find a couple of comments making that assertion on Wiki Answers, for example, but I don't think that is really what is needed. --Prh47bridge (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiAnswers is not a reliable independent source in and of itself; it is a self-referencing, circular one, and not acceptable as an original source unless it contains a valid independent reliable source when can be explored and accessed. Quis separabit? 15:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

...which has already been dealt with!!! Basket _Feudalist 15:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Found this, quite detailed from a couple of years ago, from the Indie: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7932963/How-Margaret-Thatcher-became-known-as-Milk-Snatcher.html so put the link in after the 'TTMS' quote. Move it if you think it would sit better further on? -as there's already a ref. at that point. Basket _Feudalist 12:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Street parties after death

Should these be mentioned in the 'death' section? They've received substantial media coverage: [9] [10] [11] -- Half past formerly SUFCboy 17:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead!!! Cheers Basket _Feudalist 17:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably better here? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, this now: Brits send "Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead" into music charts after Thatcher's death, It could reach even No. #1 on the charts. More info Cowicide (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone keeps re-adding the POV tag

I can't remove it again as it'll trigger another inevitable 3RR report, but I just wanted to say that I think it's fucking ridiculous. Or however you're supposed to say that in Wiki-La-La Land. Malleus Fatuorum 17:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, off the record, I've never reported a 3RR in my Wikareer I happen to think it's a coward's way of winning. But obviously I don't speak for anyone else, so am unable to advise. Basket _Feudalist 17:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

POV tag

Instead of attempting to force 3RR, Malodorous Factory should discuss on talk, and attempt to resolve the issues. Being bold isn't the same as ignoring the facts. Basket _Feudalist 17:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I note your deliberate insult and will correspondingly treat you with the contempt you so richly deserve. Malleus Fatuorum 17:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Heeey, Veteran content writer, cheer up!!! Basket _Feudalist 17:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It might be better to discuss what you want to change here rather than edit-war and insult people here. --John (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Removing tags without discussion... you rest my case. And if you read the discussion; I have been fully insulted here but, ignoring it, act like an adult, viz, focussing on the issues. Basket _Feudalist 19:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for Recent Death tag

It suprised me the recent death template isn't on this article already. Being a semiprotected article, I can't put it on, So if there's anyone with access who agrees, can they put it on? Thanks. 108.65.189.25 (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It's been on and removed already. --John (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

John removed both the POV and RD tags...without discussion. Basket _Feudalist 19:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

So you can't read then? That must make editing here really difficult. How do you manage? --John (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Could someone possibly remind editors what the rationale/ rule is for using this tag? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Could someone possibly remind John what the rationale/ rule is about WP:CIVILITY? Basket _Feudalist 19:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

(I didn't realise that Steve Nallon was a "tag" and I am also surprised that his name, as one of the prime Thatcher satirists, does not appear in the "Cultural depictions" section. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Change of subject..., re: 'Cultural Depictions', what about that James Bond film "she" was portrayed in? Diamonds Are Forever maybe, or Thunderball...? -can't remember now. Anyway it wasn't her but Janet Brown. Basket _Feudalist 19:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Just seen, the feller Benej posted 'wot I said' (almost!) a few minutes ago. Many thanks... ...I don't wear sandals... or socks! LOL Basket _Feudalist 19:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Spitting Image etc

Wikipedia is not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'd suggest that nearly the whole basis of the SI satirical portrayal was that Thatcher was, in fact, a man - who wore trousers, used urinals, smoked cigars, etc. etc. Her being a tyrant and bully, especially to her own Ministers, was more or less assumed as an ancillary fact. The importance of that portrayal is hard to overlook, and to many was second only to Steve Bell's If... in The Grauniad. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Remember the classic, in the restaurant? (raw steak / vegetables etc), couldn't find it on YT. Classic! Thanks to SI, a whole generation grew up to that completely misguided view of her. Basket Feudalist 19:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Funny how "da yoofs" enjoy being so misguided, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Well: they didn't have the real thing did they-!!! Fair point though; the Simpsons a 'recent' equivalent maybe...? Basket Feudalist 19:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a forum, although you fellows are interesting. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I was suggesting that Steve Bell ought to be mentioned. It's shame the "main articlé" referred to there is just a list. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)