Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Falkland Islands

I am quite frustrated by reading the comments under the Falkland Island category. I have changed it several times in an attempt to make the article more neutral and include that Argentina does, in fact, have century old claims to the Islands which Britain has refused to accept. The Falkland Islands war was not a question of a mere invasion but rather of a country attempting to reclaim what it believed to be its rightful possession. Therefore, I would like to ask the "powers that be" to lock the article in such a way that it does include the opinions of Argentine tradition and history and not simply to say that the Islands were "invaded" by the Argentine forces. According to Argentine history the Falklands are Argentine land that is occupied by the British. A failure to give heed to this side of the argument is a bias against it.

You have got to be kidding? You want to try Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. IMO you are asking wikipedia to accept the Argentine version, and that it cannot do, SqueakBox 23:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "you have got to be kidding" comment, I would like to mention like almost everything in life, nothing is absolute. For the sake of showing the two sides of the coin, the Argentine version (which is by the way supported by many other countries) should be taken into account.

Not in this article it doesnt, this article is about Margaret Thatcher not about the Falklands, SqueakBox 20:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that this article is about Margaret Thatcher and not about the Falkland (Malvinas) does not mean that you can write anything about that matter.

This is not an arguement about the subject of this article but rather about neutrality. By changing a few words the meaning of the paragraph is not changed but rather the bias of it is eliminated. No one is trying to deny that Argentina sent troops to the Falkland Islands nor that Argentina ended up losing the conflict. What is trying to be said is that as an attempt at writing an academic piece, it should not be stated that Argentina "invaded" the islands since a neutral position would allow room for the Argentine position as well (that position being that they are part of Argentina and are currently under occupation). I am not saying that we should argue in this article the true sovereignty of the Islands but rather that sometimes words could be more carefully chosen to reflect a neutral point of view. Regarding the "you have got to be kidding" comment, I think that a higher level of respect could be shown to other Wiki users than to personally attack in that way.

Wel, it wasnt an attack but it was an expression of disbelief, I certainly dont think when someone says "you have to be kidding" that that is taken as apersonal attack in English. The reality is that under any terms these islands were invaded by the Argentinians, which until the war were not Argentinian since 1833. Occupy makes out Thatcher was wrong to re-ocuppy them and implies that Thatcher herself invaded them and that is not what happened, what happened is that the UK were in occupation and the Argentinians invaded them and triggered a bloody war. There is space at wikipedia for the Argentinian viewpoint but that space, IMO, is not here, SqueakBox 22:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Victoria Bitter have made a commercial with a picture of Thatcher. They claim that Margaret had a 'Tash'. Well, she can hit you for six!" What the hell is that doing in the introduction? I think that should be removed, but as I am inexperienced in the ways of wikipedia rules I will not, I'll just point it out. Wegason 13:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Libya quote

I removed a strange quote about her role in the US attacks on Libya- I don't think the ravings of a dictator are relevant to the Baroness' biography. I am also concerned it breaks WP:BLP as it is clearly offensive and libelous. Astrotrain 13:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a page to honour Thatcher. This is a significant quote from a head of state of a nation recognised in the UN.--Vintagekits 13:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What Liyba a UN recognised country?. And what does critised mean? Clearly to libellously call her a prostitute and murderer will not be allowed here as a violation of BLP, merely because Gaddafi is a head of state doesnt mean we tolerate his statements that violate BLP, SqueakBox 15:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh well why dont we whitewash any critisism of the good Lady then!--Vintagekits 22:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've also had to remove a similar comment from Ivor Bell. Astrotrain 22:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The comment is notable as it came from a world leader. The comment does not breach WP:BLP as it is sources from a WP:RS. Unless someone can convince me otherwise that section and more will be going back in--Vintagekits 23:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a sourced quote from a reliable source, WP:BLP does not apply. One Night In Hackney 23:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Its a libellous slur and just because Gaddafi is a world leader does not give him the right to call any UK citizen a prostitute let alone a respected ex PM, clearly this was a BLP violation as libellous and untrue. We dont say George Bush is in competition with Hitler as pure evil in the W.Bush article even though Chavez says it, and nor can we make incendiary statements here, SqueakBox 04:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Since when is Thatcher respected? She's one of the most despised PMs of recent times. I propose Gaddafi's criticism is included, although not in the form of a direct quote. At present it seems the entire article is a whitewash bereft of criticism of Thatcher, the meeting with Pinochet is described as "highly publicised" as opposed to the more accurate "highly controversial". One Night In Hackney 07:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

In the June 1983 general election, the Conservatives won 42.4% of the vote, the Labour party 27.6% and the Alliance 25.4% of the vote. Although the Conservatives' share of the vote had fallen slightly (1.5%) since 1979, Labour's vote had fallen by far more (9.3%) and in Britain's first past the post system, the Conservatives won a landslide victory even though it had the support of less than 43% of the electorate

Only 43%? that is a massive majority, it is not a two party system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.154.115 (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Internment"

A small error: in the paragraph noting Reagan's funeral, it reads "...attended the memorial service and internment ceremony for President Reagan..." Of course, that should be "interment". Perhaps someone ought to fix that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.224.24.21 (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Fixed. asklucas 01:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Libya quote

I removed a strange quote about her role in the US attacks on Libya- I don't think the ravings of a dictator are relevant to the Baroness' biography. I am also concerned it breaks WP:BLP as it is clearly offensive and libelous. Astrotrain 13:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a page to honour Thatcher. This is a significant quote from a head of state of a nation recognised in the UN.--Vintagekits 13:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What Liyba a UN recognised country?. And what does critised mean? Clearly to libellously call her a prostitute and murderer will not be allowed here as a violation of BLP, merely because Gaddafi is a head of state doesnt mean we tolerate his statements that violate BLP, SqueakBox 15:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh well why dont we whitewash any critisism of the good Lady then!--Vintagekits 22:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've also had to remove a similar comment from Ivor Bell. Astrotrain 22:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The comment is notable as it came from a world leader. The comment does not breach WP:BLP as it is sources from a WP:RS. Unless someone can convince me otherwise that section and more will be going back in--Vintagekits 23:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a sourced quote from a reliable source, WP:BLP does not apply. One Night In Hackney 23:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Its a libellous slur and just because Gaddafi is a world leader does not give him the right to call any UK citizen a prostitute let alone a respected ex PM, clearly this was a BLP violation as libellous and untrue. We dont say George Bush is in competition with Hitler as pure evil in the W.Bush article even though Chavez says it, and nor can we make incendiary statements here, SqueakBox 04:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Since when is Thatcher respected? She's one of the most despised PMs of recent times. I propose Gaddafi's criticism is included, although not in the form of a direct quote. At present it seems the entire article is a whitewash bereft of criticism of Thatcher, the meeting with Pinochet is described as "highly publicised" as opposed to the more accurate "highly controversial". One Night In Hackney 07:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That is simply your opinion re her not being respected. She is, of course, hugely respected for the indomitable will and tremendous energy she put into repairing the damage done by malcontents to the UK, and abroad she is also highly respected. A minority may depise her but a lot of people respect her, SqueakBox 23:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

She is of course highly respected, how else did she win 3 sucessive elections? The quote was ludicrous, is Gaddafi a reliable source for the relationship between Reagan and Thatcher - of course not. I think Vintagekits and One Night In Hackney have a another agenda.

As a non-british I would like to add, that from my perception Thatcher is one of the most controversial figures since WWII in continental Europe, espescially among the left wing people. Due to Falkland, she is often regarded as imperialistic. Thus I think Gaddafi's statement is a good reflection, how controversial her person is in the rest of the world and should be included. The reader of the article should form his own opinion, whether he admires her or despises her. asklucas 02:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how defending your territory from attack is imperialism? And you think calling her prostitute is a "good reflection" on her? 212.248.242.3 05:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Coventry Four

Johnbull has today deleted reference to the Coventry Four from the 1983-87 section. Is not the Coventry Four affair very closely related to Margaret Thatcher?Phase4 17:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No. I know I am going to regret asking this, but why do you think they are? Lao Wai 17:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

For my reasons for deleting this, I will repeat what I said on my talk page: "I can't see what relation it has to Margaret Thatcher. The article [on the Coventry Four] has a woolly-worded unsourced paragraph on Botha's visit to Chequers and a sentence further up the article on an "alleged intervention from Downing Street", also unsourced. Unless there is a reliable reference that the Coventry Four is related to Margaret Thatcher and is relevant to a biographical article on her I can't see that it merits mentioning. None of her biographers have sought fit to mention the Coventry Four either".--Johnbull 17:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

For reasons given on your talk page, where you have been warned that your edits will be blocked following your persistent and unwarranted reversions, I am reverting to Astrotrain's status quo ante.Phase4 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not been warned that my edits will be "blocked". You have been asked to give reasons why the Coventry Four are related to Margaret Thatcher by me and others and you have failed to do so. Until you can justify having the Coventry Four in the article then it shouldn't be there.--Johnbull 23:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll certainly look at the justification and will edit accordingly.Phase4 23:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an extract from an article entitled Commons test for SA arms row in The Guardian of December 9, 1988:

"While the four were on bail, Mrs Thatcher, who took a personal interest in the case, met Mr Botha at Chequers for the first time. A spokesman for Customs and Excise, whose officers dealt with the case, said yesterday that 10 Downing Street's request for daily summaries of their investigation was not unprecedented. Mr Brian Wilson, a Labour MP said there was a prima facie case to suggest that Downing Street was involved in assisting the four to avoid trial."

I think this fully justifies having the Coventry Four in Margaret Thatcher's article and, accordingly, am editing them in.Phase4 16:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as a reliable source to justify mentioning it in the article. The request for daily summaries into the investigation is not unprecedented, as the quote says, and so it is not notable for addition to the article. Also, a Labour MP is hardly a reliable source—they will claim Thatcher was involved in order to score political points. It's almost conspiracy theorising to claim that Thatcher was somehow—as I think it is being alluded to—helping the Coventry Four behind the scenes. There is no evidence that the Coventry Four was discussed at Chequers or that Thatcher was actively involved in granting them bail. If it is prima facie then it has not been proved.--Johnbull 17:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a "reliable source": it is an article by Richard Norton-Taylor and David Pallister – two very experienced and professional journalists – of The Guardian. Sorry if it causes you disappointment!Phase4 17:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It is unproven that Thatcher was involved in the case and just because she took note of the court proceedings does not suggest anything unusual, something which is noted in the article you quoted. To claim more than that is not factual but an unproven allegation, which you want to present as fact. It should not be in the article.--Johnbull 18:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Unproven equals "it doesn't suit my preconceptions". Sorry, Johnbull, but you are wrong.Phase4 21:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No, unproven means just that: no reliable evidence, just allegations—which is all of what your sources are, allegations. Are you arguing that Thatcher was involved in the Coventry Four beyond just reading daily summaries of the court case?--Johnbull 21:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian article says that Thatcher took a personal interest in the Coventry Four case and asked for daily summaries to be provided by HM Customs and Excise. What – precisely – is "unproven" about that?Phase4 21:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing, it is in fact the only thing proven about her relationship to the Coventry Four: anything more than that would be unproven. I don't think her taking an interest in the court proceedings therefore makes it acceptable to insert it around her meeting with Botha as there is no evidence that it was part of their conversation. Thatcher reading summaries of the court case proves nothing more than just that, and, as your source notes, is not unprecedented. It is therefore not notable enough to be included in the article.--Johnbull 21:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you the same Johnbull who has been editing the England First Party article so assiduously recently?Phase4 22:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the Margaret Thatcher article talk page, please stop trying to divert it from your questionable sources. On England First, I was reverting a vandal who was continually deleting the categories and a Searchlight magazine external link on the party from the article. It has nothing to do with Thatcher and the fact that you continually try to avoid debating the issue is telling, and just adds up to the fact that Thatcher has no link to the Coventry Four other than reading their court case. I have therefore removed it from the article.--Johnbull 22:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Johnbull has today deleted the following text from the 1983-87 section:

"The hostages' release coincided with the freeing from jail in Britain of four South Africans who were arrested in Coventry in March 1984 and accused of contravening the UN arms embargo, which outlawed the export to South Africa of military equipment."

The summary of Johnbull's edit posed two questions:

• So what if Coventry Four coincided with this? and,
• What are you trying to insinuate?

My response is simply that the release of the Coventry Four has to be seen in the context of Mrs Thatcher's wish to get the British hostages safely out of Angola in April 1984, and her aim to have a successful meeting with the South African leaders at Chequers in June 1984.Phase4 15:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does it have to be seen in that context? You provided no evidence that the Coventry Four is linked to British hostages in Angola or that either the Coventry Four or the hostages in Angola affair has anything to do with Botha's meeting with Thatcher at Chequers. I think we should stick to the facts, not innuendo.--Johnbull 17:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, the facts speak volumes for themselves about the three events. There is no innuendo: sometimes, Johnbull, you just have to admit you're wrong and undo your rash, premature editing. Now, how's about a bit of humble pie-eating on your part?Phase4 22:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

When I read your edit summary I thought at long last you had produced some facts, but, alas, no. I think you forget that in order for the facts to speak for themselves it is required for their to be facts presented in the first place. But facts once again allude you and, unsurprisingly, you have failed to engage in an adult manner with the points I raised in my last post.--Johnbull 23:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no place for unsourced coincidences, so John is right to remove that piece of unsourced original research, SqueakBox 23:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks SqueakBox: I fully agree that unsourced coincidences or original research should be removed. I'm not sure what unsourced original research on the Coventry Four you are referring to. Hopefully, the following extract from the Guardian letter at Coventry Four#Re-surfacing can help to resolve this particular impasse:

"Clearly, Mrs Thatcher wanted the four high-profile detainees safely out of UK jurisdiction, back in South Africa and off the agenda well before her June 1984 talks at Chequers with the two visiting Bothas. Strange that Pik Botha, the Foreign Minister, was able to find an excuse for not allowing the Coventry Four to stand trial in the Autumn of 1984.

"Stranger still that Mrs Thatcher failed to denounce Mr Botha's refusal to surrender the four "terrorists" (cf declaration by US Governor Dukakis that South Africa is a "terrorist state")."

I'd be interested to know whether this sourced and reliable reference connecting Mrs Thatcher to the Coventry Four is regarded as sufficient to merit their inclusion in her biography.Phase4 14:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not "clear", despite what Haseldine asserts, what Thatcher's involvement was. What Haseldine argues is not verifiable fact but his opinion. If this is added into the article it must be made clear that this is Haseldine's view of the matter.--Johnbull 15:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Good. I therefore propose the following edit:

"At the end of March 1984, four South Africans were arrested in Coventry, remanded in custody, and charged with contravening the UN arms embargo, which prohibited exports to apartheid South Africa of military equipment. Mrs Thatcher took a personal interest in the Coventry Four and 10 Downing Street requested daily summaries of the case from the prosecuting authority, HM Customs and Excise. Within a month, the Coventry Four had been freed from jail and allowed to travel to South Africa – on condition that they returned to England to stand trial later that year. [In April 1984, Thatcher sent senior British diplomat, Sir John Leahy etc etc...................economic sanctions against South Africa would be immoral because they would make thousands of black workers unemployed.] In August 1984, foreign minister Pik Botha decided not to allow the Coventry Four to return to stand trial, thereby forfeiting £200,000 bail money put up by the South African embassy in London. The Coventry Four affair, and Mrs Thatcher's alleged involvement in it, would hit the headlines four years later when British diplomat, Patrick Haseldine, wrote a letter to the Guardian newspaper."

What do you think?Phase4 20:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's better than what was originally in the article.--Johnbull 21:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My comment was based on what appeared to be OR and was certainly uunsourced, and then removed by John. Siourced material can go in as I dont think notability is an issue in this case, SqueakBox 21:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Global warming

The article has this:

In her book Statecraft (2002), she described her later regret in supporting the concept of human-induced global warming, outlining the negative effects she perceived it had upon the policy-making process. "Whatever international action we agree upon to deal with environmental problems, we must enable our economies to grow and develop, because without growth you cannot generate the wealth required to pay for the protection of the environment" (452).

Is it true that she regretted "supporting the concept"? It would be fascinating if it were. The quote only indicates that she was against some of the proposed policy responses to global warming. And if she regretted supporting the concept, was this because she had changed her mind, or for some other reason? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.137.35.86 (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

The main photograph

File:Thatchercloseup.JPG

I can't help feeling the main current photograph is rather unflattering, almost as though someone wants to make her look as condescending as possible. Any thoughts? Dovea 10:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing.... Nssdfdsfds 00:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Uploaded one, Image:ThatcherProfile.jpg. Is it better the 300x360 crop, or the 400x600? Nssdfdsfds 01:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the current one we are using (from Red Star magazine) is probably a free use image but someone with better know-how than me needs to clarify that. If its not I've just uploaded the profile one to wikimedia commons, and also a close up of another picture from flickr, not sure which would be best. I think though, it should be a picture from around the time she was PM, not years before/after--Ruddyell 11:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As the uploader has claimed "fair use" for the Red Star image, it should be taken down anyway. The Fair Use policy states that we should "Always use a more free alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. 'Acceptable quality' means quality sufficient to serve the necessary encyclopedic purpose."

It seems that there are plenty of free to use images of acceptable quality in the Wikimedia Commons, so it immediately fails the first of the fair use criteria.

Unless someone wants to get enmeshed in arguments about whether the dissolution of a publisher, the "possible" death of the photographer and current Russian copyright law all allow the Red Star photograph to be free of copyright, it should be deleted in 48 hours as a fair use breach.

I have replaced the current image with the profile one above as a temporary measure, but I have no objections if someone wants to switch it for another of the free equivalents. Road Wizard 18:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous user keeps restoring the Red Star image mentioned above. I would appreciate some comments from other editors on my interpretation of Wikipedia:Fair Use policy, because the anonymous editor is dragging me into an edit war. I would be a lot more comfortable if there is a consensus agreeing with my actions. Thanks. Road Wizard 03:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the current b&w photo is rather old and of little likeness (or indeed relevance) to the lady as she currently is. I believe that a more up to date photo of her would be more appropriate. if not of her as she is now, then at least one of her when she was PM.--Andyuk7 19:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The current photo is from 1975 and nothing like peoples perceptions of her. I think the profile picture from flickr is best, but someone needs to get rid of that random light behind her head--Ruddyell 21:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

...whut?

"Born 13 October 1925 (age 81)"

To me, this makes it look like she was born 81 years old, when obviously she wasn't. I'm wondering if it's truly necessary to have her age there when it'd fit better in the opening paragraph. WorMzy 20:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's there to help s[censored] Americans who are incapable of doing simple mathematics without the aid of a calculator. It's similar to how US TV channels routinely say things like "London, England" and "Tokyo, Japan" because they believe that most Americans don't know anything about the world outside of their own country. Xanucia 14:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Its in the template, ie a computer process and not changeable, SqueakBox 16:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not changeable? Says who? I just changed it.... Nssdfdsfds 23:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point, obviously it can be changed. Although I think it should stay or state closely she is now 81. MitchKliev 05:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can get rid of it I support that, SqueakBox 18:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

One of two....

I replaced the mention of Thatcher being 'one of two' women both to lead a political party, and hold one of the big 4 - i felt that this was unnecessary, and also ultimately doomed to inaccuracy - hopefully saying that she was first will preserve the intended meaning..... Petesmiles 12:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I agree, SqueakBox 16:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

European Single Market

I detect some historical revisionism here. I am certain that Mrs T signed the treaty that created the European Single Market, but there is no mention of it. I know that every single item can't be mentioned, but the recidivist Tory hagiography (repeated here) has it that she was anti-EU at every turn, which clearly was not the case - in fact she was very proud of the ESM as being a true blue Free Trade agenda. What gives? --Red King 23:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've found the relevant article: it is Single European Act. --Red King 23:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

To make a reply, firstly I will state Margaret Thatcher was very Anti-EU. It was her ministers that were not. She was basicly forced to sign the England into the EU by her cabinent. Read her book "Statecraft" and "Path to power". It will state Michael Heseltine and Norman Tebbit were the pro EU in her reign. MitchKliev 06:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, MitchKliev, I will not take anything seriously which you post, considering that you refer to her signing England into the EU. Since when was England's European policy different from that of the rest of the UK? She signed the whole of the UK into the EU! Referring to the UK as England is ignorance in the extreme! Mattbroon 11:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Crime is crime is crime; it is not political."

Isn't this quote an error ? And shouldn't it be "Crime is crime; it is not political." ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.190.194.194 (talk • contribs).

No, her quote was exactly as is stated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.208.69 (talk • contribs).