Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:20, 19 April 2013

The good article status of this article is being reassessed by the community to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Margaret Thatcher article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Template:Controversial (politics)

	Margaret Thatcher is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	Margaret Thatcher has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 18, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 9, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted July 24, 2006 Featured article review Kept July 11, 2007 Featured article review Demoted November 29, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed December 23, 2008 Good article nominee Listed January 12, 2009 Peer review Reviewed January 9, 2011 Good article reassessment Delisted January 21, 2011 Good article nominee Listed February 22, 2012 Good article reassessment Delisted March 18, 2012 Good article reassessment Listed Current status: Former featured article, current good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Peerage and Baronetage / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Lincolnshire Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lincolnshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lincolnshire on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LincolnshireWikipedia:WikiProject LincolnshireTemplate:WikiProject LincolnshireLincolnshire Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics of the United Kingdom Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cold War High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. London High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. University of Oxford Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women scientists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Naomi Alderman (Tuesday 7 April 2009). "Encarta's failure is no tragedy:Misplaced Pages has succeeded where Microsoft's Encarta failed, and seems to be a reversal of the 'tragedy of the commons'". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Stephen Foley (Tuesday, 3 February 2009). "So is Misplaced Pages cracking up?:It was a utopian vision: an encyclopedia for the people, by the people. But eight years on, Misplaced Pages is plagued by endless hoaxes, and lurches from one cash crisis to another. Will it become a footnote in the history of the web?". The Independent. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on May 4, 2004, October 12, 2004, May 4, 2007, May 4, 2008, May 4, 2009, May 4, 2011, and May 4, 2012.

Template:Conservatism SA

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Margaret Thatcher article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 7 days

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

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference polltax was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference msn was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. "Violence flares in poll tax demonstration". BBC. 31 March 1990. Retrieved 30 October 2008.
4. "News of water sale's death greatly exaggerated", The Times (2 October 1989).
5. "All Thatcherites now", The Times (15 June 1988).

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)

Apparently it isn't, it's The Rt Hon. the Baroness Thatcher LG OM. See Lord Ahmed (who isn't Lord Ahmed of Rotherham) and also Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (presumably they either get to choose how they want the title to display or, more likely, it's decided for them to avoid confusion with similar names, i.e. Lord Ahmed was raised before Lord Ahmad so didn't need any clarification). Bromley86 (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently it is. According to the official announcement in the London Gazette: "The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, dated the 26th June 1992, to confer the dignity of a Barony of the United Kingdom for life upon the Right Honourable Margaret Hilda Thatcher, O.M., by the name, style and title of BARONESS THATCHER, of Kesteven in the County of Lincolnshire". http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/52978/pages/11045 EphenStephen (talk) 15:11, 14 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

We can't let the sentence stay uncontextualised that says that "small groups" celebrated her death. I suggest we quote this this article by Stephen Glover in the Daily Mail, which says "Never in modern times, and probably not in the entire history of these islands, has the demise of a public figure been greeted with such euphoria and wild expressions of hate." Many of us may feel that these celebrations are in poor taste, but they and their unprecedented scale are obviously encyclopaedic. We should refer to their scale in the article. Is there any argument against this? The scale has been reported in many many reliable sources, and commented upon by leading politicians across the spectrum.Crebble (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307104/Margaret-Thatcher-death-party-This-lack-respect-dead-disturbing-new-low.html#ixzz2QF0z0mts

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Street parties after death

Should these be mentioned in the 'death' section? They've received substantial media coverage: -- 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)

This one was posted on 7 May 2011: . Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC) although this poster uses the quaint Gaelic spelling, using b to represent

Bell I never!!! Basket _Feudalist 16:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Currently at Number 10 (lol), highest entry in the midweek chart: Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Much has been said about the need to include the unusually negative reactions to Lady Thatcher's death, an indication of the public's attitudes towards her throughout her prime ministership. These reactions have now been compiled but sectioned off at Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher#Others, even though they are not merely relevant as reactions to her death but more significantly point to her political legacy. Meanwhile, the section in the main article at Margaret Thatcher#Political legacy consists of eight generally glowing paragraphs concluded by one which is rather mildly critical, but there is no suggestion of the strong discontentment amongst (at least some sections of) the community in general. Surely the "Legacy" section in the main article should at least include a passing reference to this with a link to the reactions to her death in the other article? This is in the interests of WP:NPOV by reflecting a balance of views. —sroc (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Supreme facepalm of destiny... Oh my gawd~! Ladies and germs, here are more evidence that WP has gone the way of those worldly... ahem, tabloids. (Might I interest you guys to read up on WP:Neutral point of view#Explanation of the neutral point of view?) --Dave 02:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view." — Explanation of the neutral point of view

Hence, the article now includes this: "In keeping with the often controversial nature of her political stances, Thatcher's death trigged a mix of public reactions, many of which were less than complimentary."

If the wording of this statement is perceived an non-neutral, by all means change it, but to remove it entirely would be to omit a prominent point of view which would be altogether contrary to NPOV. —sroc (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I know that was well-intentioned but it was awful. I took it out. --John (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Awful in what sense? As I said, if it's the way it's worded, re-word it. But why remove a significant viewpoint? —sroc (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." — WP:Neutral point of view#Achieving neutrality

What about this: "Thatcher's death raised a mix of reactions, including many which criticised her political philosophies and time in office."

Surely that is accurate, referenced, relevant to her legacy, and consistent with WP:NPOV. If it isn't, please be clear about precisely what the issue is with reference to the specific aspect of WP policy so that the issue can be understood and corrected — rather than summarily dismissing it without explanation, which would be unhelpful and disrespectful. —sroc (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That looks good to me. -- Half past formerly SUFCboy 13:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Or "on her death some people took the opportunity to praise her while others took the opportunity to criticise her". Whoopee. Mr Stephen (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I've added:

Thatcher's death raised a mix of reactions, with many praising her leadership and achievements whilst others criticised her political philosophies and time in office. Detractors celebrated the news across the UK and the Daily Telegraph was forced to close comments on its online articles about Thatcher because of hateful "abuse".

The first sentence is a re-working of the above proposed wording, trying to maintain a sense of balance (noting that the "Political legacy" section is mostly favourable already anyway). The second sentence draws in a bit more of the reaction, all of which is sourced and already included at Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher. Hopefully this complies with WP policy. If not, please specify why it doesn't. Please make an effort to keep this information, and edit it if necessary to comply with WP policy, rather than remove it entirely. The article, and this section in particular, will suffer by failing to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". —sroc (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Like Mr Stephen, I am underwhelmed by this. There is certainly no need to have multiple links to the death article. One is plenty. There is no reason we would want to inject tabloid "sources" into this when we have decent ones. --John (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

There certainly is reason to include a link to the Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher#Reactions article/section when we are talking about mixed reactions to her death: (1) it is directly relevant to the immediate discussion; (2) it aids a full understanding of the subject; (3) the earlier link to the Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher article (generally) is in the "Death" section, not the "Legacy" section; (4) it would not be immediately apparent to someone reading the Thatcher article that a link to Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher under the "Death" section would also include more detailed information about reactions to her death when reading the "Legacy" section. In any event, having two separate links in two separate sections in two separate contexts (where one is a link to a specific section on that page) is hardly overkill.

The use of tabloid sources is an entirely separate issue. —sroc (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:OVERLINK: "…the choice of whether or not to repeat a link should consider whether the added value of linking a particular occurrence outweighs the consequent dilution of the value of other links." IMHO, the value of the in-context link from "mixed reactions" to the "Reactions" section of the other article does tip the scales. —sroc (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, the line:

"Thatcher's death raised a mix of reactions, with many praising her leadership and achievements whilst others criticised her political philosophies and time in office."

has now been reduced to:

"Thatcher's death prompted criticism and praise."

This rather misses the point — it is unusual that a person's death prompts a mix of criticism amidst the usual compliments — and the edited version rather understates the significance of the criticism in the context of Thatcher's legacy. (The absence of a link to the detailed reactions further deprives the reader of a full understanding of this.) —sroc (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It is far from unusual for the death of a controversial politician to produce a mixture of praise and criticism. It would have been astonishing if anything else had happened. Ronald Reagan was a similar case. Is it really worth recording that Tony Blair praised her and George Galloway cursed her, or whatever? Will it be important in 10 years? --John (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not the predictable opinions of politicians that are significant - it's the extraordinary polarisation of popular opinion that still divides the UK, twenty years after she lost power, between at one extreme people demanding the erection of a statue in Trafalgar Square, and at the other extreme crowd-sourced parties in celebration of her death. That polarisation would be extraordinary in any country, but particularly in Britain, where I doubt it's been seen since the time of the Chartists in the early 19th century. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Part of the significance of the deep divisions in public reaction may be in the sense of unrest which seems to be brewing, and the consequences which this unrest may have next week when the epic (and apparently very costly) funeral takes place, e.g. . How will people who are losing benefits for having empty spare rooms feel about a few million being spent on Baroness Thatcher's military honours send-off? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned that there seems to be an attempt to keep any mention of negative reaction to her (e.g. the popularity of "Ding! Dong! The witch is dead!", street parties celebrating her passing etc.) from this article; as mentioned above by Ghmyrtle, this sort of extreme reaction is unprecedented, certainly in recent years, and is therefore notable enough to require mention. Hiving it off into an article about her death smacks of non-NPOV, surely.--TraceyR (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You may be forgetting that this is an encyclopaedia article rather than a news piece. As a serious resource, we apply different criteria for inclusion than a newspaper does. Do you think this will still be notable in 10 years? 20 years? If the answer is seriously "yes", then maybe we can talk about putting in material like this. --John (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. Even in 40 years time it will still be significant that she had a polarising and deeply divisive influence on this country; the reactions to her death are clear evidence of this. Omitting to mention them would be falsifying the record (and smack of hagiography). More objectivity and less whitewash are required. --TraceyR (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Nothing like it happened when, say, Churchill died, or Attlee, or Wilson. We won't know for certain until 10 or 20 years have passed, but the balance of probabilities is that this polarisation has more than fleeting significance. But obviously we need to use good sources that report on the fact. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

When was the last time Parliament was recalled from recess to "pay tribute" to a former Prime Minister, (unsurprisingly with the opposition benches half empty)? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

John would probably prefer to report that as "half full" ;-) --TraceyR (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Your personalising of this discussion is noted. I find that unacceptable. Malleus and I put a lot of work into improving this article and it is offensive to see editors like yourself rubbishing our attempts to defend it against recentism and popular culture trash. --John (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you choose to take offence at my attempt at an amusing aside. I'm not sure what you consider to be "rubbishing, either. I'm sure that everyone who makes contributions here believes that he/she is "improving this article". The trouble is when editors persist in promoting their own POV when there is a consensus for a different one, as is the case with mentioning critical reactions to her legacy, spontaneous street parties, keeping links to a daughter article etc. BTW there is a wonderful essay which I can recommend.--TraceyR (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Now you're taking the piss, and that's noted too. I'd certainly agree about the problem being "editors ... promoting their own POV". Remind me, where were you when we were getting the article to GA status? --John (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Please explain the relevance of that remark. Are you suggesting that, having helped to achieve GA status on this article, you and others have acquired some sort of ownership rights here? I hope not, because that would be of couse contrary to WP policy. I am concerned that a consensus view re reactions to her death is being deliberately suppressed (several reverts).--TraceyR (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's please be civil, keep discussions focussed on improving the article in line with WP policy, and not make things personal. Although John, since you brought it up, and with all due respect to the work you and others have put into building a great article, comments like "maybe we can talk about putting in material like this" can come across as condescending. Remember, no one owns WP articles, but we should all respect each other's work and assume good faith. Thanks to John and everyone to contributing comments on the talk page and helping build consensus. —sroc (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what is meant by "popular culture trash". But it is unfortunate that the efforts of some hard-working editors may have been misinterpreted as just the defence of a much hated political figure who is still referred to by many as "TBW". Real world events can put what were once considered very good articles into a very different perspective - Jimmy Savile being a recent case in point. I guess we all still have the funeral to "look forward to", as it were. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

By popular culture trash, I mean Facebook and the like. There's an element of recentism and POV-pushing in the repeated efforts to include multiple links to the daughter article. One link is plenty. --John (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, FB and YT... the deadly dual nemesis of any good on-line encyclopedia (?). Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

John, I see that you have deleted the link to the reactions to Thatcher's death again. With respect, I disagree with your comment that "ne link is plenty."

(1) Currently, the only link to the "daughter article" is a hatnote at the top of the "Death" section:

It is not evident from this hatnote that the daughter article also includes information about reactions to her death, and the casual reader would not assume there is such content to be found there;

(2) Where there is reference to the polarised reactions to her death (e.g., "Thatcher's death prompted criticism as well as praise"), the "Reactions" section of the daughter article is especially relevant;

(3) A specific link to the "Reactions" section of the daughter article aids a full understanding of the reactions that is otherwise not available from the parent article;

(4) It would be particularly helpful to have a link to the "Reactions" section of the daughter article under the "Legacy" section of the article, since there is no existing link to the daughter article in that section at all;

(5) As noted by TraceyR, there appears to be a tendency to hide negative reactions, firstly, by cordoning them off in a separate article (whose title does not refer to reactions at all), and secondly, by failing to link to that article in the appropriate place when discussing reactions to her death within the parent article;

(6) Having two separate links to the daughter article — in two separate sections of the parent article (one under "Death", one under "Legacy"), in two separate contexts (one in relation to her death, one in relation to reactions), where one links to the daughter article generally whilst the other links to a specific section — is not overkill.

As noted above, the overlink policy states: "…the choice of whether or not to repeat a link should consider whether the added value of linking a particular occurrence outweighs the consequent dilution of the value of other links." In light of the above enumerated points, IMHO, the second link should be included. Even if the exact wording of the policy did not allow for such consideration, we could always ignore the rule and include it in light of these considerations. As you haven't given any clear reason to refute the above points in order to justify your view that "ne link is plenty," it appears that you may be sticking too rigidly to the idea of "one link per page" without considering the full context.

In light of the various comments above, it seems that the tide of consensus is in favour of having a link to the "Reactions" section in the appropriate context here. —sroc (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way:

(7) The paragraph on reactions under "Political legacy" only has one other wikilink; another link is hardly going to deluge the page in a sea of blue. —sroc (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for these well-reasoned points, with which (fwiw) I agree. A consensus is needed on this issue. Surely, if it is not resolved, the article's GA status would be in doubt.--TraceyR (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the GA criteria? Which one covers "the article doesn't link to what I'd like it to link to"? Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite right. It doesn't require every article to mention Woolly Mammoths either ;-) It does however require articles to e.g. neutral and stable, neither of which are satisfied by this article.--TraceyR (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be a little confused about the GA criteria. In case you hadn't realised, Margaret Thatcher died a few days ago, so of course the article has needed to be updated. Doesn't make it "unstable" though. Malleus Fatuorum 05:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would respond sensibly, not just to the last point which caught your attention. There were two points: (1) Neutrality and (2) Stability. And of course the latter doesn't refer to the spate of amendments following her death, but e.g. to the repeated reverts (lack of stability) of entries mentioning critical reponses to her death (lack of neutrality). --TraceyR (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That's such a stupid thing to say that it quite literally boggles my mind. So you're saying that unless you get a greater number of links to the daughter article than OVERLINK provides for (how many were you looking for? Three? Four?) you contend that the article does not meet the criteria? Here's a clue for you; neutrality is achieved by using reliable sources (ie not Facebook or the Daily Mail) in correct proportions to reflect the real-world coverage. --John (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This is starting to look like a competition for which of you can make the greatest number of non-sequiturs in this thread. Weird! --TraceyR (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Salmond quote

The article reads

I think this downplays the original quote a bit, which is:

In my opinion, if we're going to discuss reactions, we should select ones that look back on the good and bad aspects of her life, and show how she's remembered, and how her policies affected people moving forwards. I think the full quote does this, but the way it's presented now is so vague as to be meaningless. I'll do an edit adding in more of the quote, but wanted to explain why. Adam Cuerden 13:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Remind me. The poll tax was very much MT's baby, but introducing it first in Scotland was not her idea, but the Scottish Office's. It was introduced before the election, but was it introduced because of the election or because of upcoming revaluation for rates purposes? Rates were very unpopular in Scotland; what were the alternatives at the time? "Failure in British government: The politics of the poll tax" by Butler is the number one source, but I don't have it. Mr Stephen (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of people have had something to say about Thatcher, so why is Alex Salmonds quote the only one really presented in the legacy section? Can we have some MORE? --85.211.123.9 (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Warcrimes

Why is there nothing about allegations of war crimes? The Falkland war? Orders given by her? 188.23.163.50 (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thatcher effect

The image at Thatcher effect would be improved if it were actually of Thatcher. This visual phenomenon may not be worthy of mention in the main article, but does it warrant a See Also entry? Maybe this wasn't the appropriate way of raising the issue.. Hillbillyholiday 16:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Thompson's original 1980 Perception paper was called "Margaret Thatcher: a new illusion", although it has really nothing to do with her personally. But York Conservative Association were credited for supplying the "stimulus material". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC) p.s. I think Kiefer must prefer his ladies upside down, politically speaking of course.

This is a discussion for Talk:Thatcher_effect, not here. —sroc (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Not even sure it belongs here as a See also. --John (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. I left the first (removed) comment at the end of a ridiculously long edit-binge. To be serious for a sec though, it's a real pity this never made it's way into the article before the 8th.. Really though, it's my own fault for being an utter coward in not trying to put things like that (and other info i had gleaned in my pre-wiki days) into the article. I haven't any particular drum to bang r.e. political views, linking public figures to murders will do for me. Far too much time has been spent examining Maggie's legacy at home, where arguments could be made about how many suffered or died etc, when if you look abroad (and seriously you can take yr pick of countries) you can find much more 'relevant' stuff. But, as the document attached says in conclusion:

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on. - Old Arab proverb

Hillbillyholiday 02:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Penman reader Basket _Feudalist 16:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure Thompson used her image only because she was Prime Minister and thus a very well-known face to the UK public at the time. The dogs salivate, but the Caravan moves on. Old Freudian proverb Martinevans123 (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

What does Penman reader mean? Hillbillyholiday 17:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

80% growth of total wealth??

I've deleted a startling claim (twice) that Thatcher presided over 80% total growth in personal wealth. The source is a book that I can't find on questia or any online resources. I see it on Amazon, so it's clearly a real book, but the referenced page is not available online. The notion that there was an 80% growth in total wealth in GB under her seems impossible given GB's GDP was around 2-3% annually under her (and 23% total). If this is a real claim, you need a better source. It's just too startling of a claim that doesn't make intuitive sense.Jasonnewyork (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Try a library, or buy a copy like I did. Sheesh. --John (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Everyone seems to just be saying "it's a valid source" without addressing the underlying point. I just looked at GB's site for the office of economic statistics, and this notion that wealth grew by 80% from 1979-1990 is really unfounded. It actually was flat from 1987-1991 (it goes on an arc up and down but ends up where it started), and it only grew about 18% from 1979-1987. I understand that you have a book that claims otherwise, but it just doesn't make intuitive sense given the economic landscape of GB during that period.Jasonnewyork (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you a published expert in international economics? I am not, but I suspect we may be looking at different statistics using different indicators of wealth. Marr does not claim "total wealth" as you say, but "total personal wealth". I suspect that this may relate to the growth of share ownership (privatisation) and the sale of council houses, as stated in the previous sentence. My original research or yours won't cut any ice here though. If there are other sources you wish to bring to the discussion, feel free to bring them. You lost a lot of credibility in my eyes though by calling Marr a "dummy source". --John (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Try briefly searching google for another source. The book is on 'British theatre' mind you. More can be gleaned in a more appropriate source pg 39 here to precis this 2nd ref - they are (more or less) wildly guesstimating when evaluating personal wealth in the UK for this period. Hillbillyholiday 09:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC) (p.s. i did state earlier that i was about to embark on a wee wiki-break, but i just can't tear myself away)

And you've got to love Marr, if only for this gem: " lot of bloggers seem to be socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed young men sitting in their mother's basements and ranting. They are very angry people." Hillbillyholiday 09:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A better way of addressing both your concerns here would just be to add something like: It has been stated that total personal wealth rose by 80 per cent, however, as cabinet minister Sir Ian Gilmour has noted, the Thatcher era was : "characterized by inadequate, and sometimes deliberately misleading obfuscation of government statistics."

John, I do like Marr, but he's not 'all that' by any means, did you see any of Andrew Marr's History of the World? I only remember I soon started to shout at the TV and my Dad suggested we watch something else! 'Facile regurgitation' was the over-riding impression. Hillbillyholiday 10:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It's feasible for total personal wealth's share of GDP to have grown by 80%, if e.g. it started at 1% of GDP (or whatever) and reached 1.8% during Thatcher's period in office. Just a thought. But the Gilmour quote (a reliable source) casts doubts on any such govt. figures at the time. --TraceyR (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

My point entirely, Tracey. And not to talk behind Malleus' back (natch he's watchlisted this page - and you will raise yr head above the parapet, Malleus!), while it's clear to me in my very short time here that he's a fantastic contributor to mainspace (indeed one of the very best), and I at first kinda enjoyed his sarcasm and (brutal) honesty on various talk pages where i keep seeing the name, I can't help but wonder (out loud now) whether he talks to people like that in real-life? Do you Malleus? Hillbillyholiday 11:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the accuracy of the statistic, we should be careful about misrepresenting it straightforwardly as an achievement. The growth in personal wealth under Thatcher will be attributable in large part to house price inflation. That's a success in some sense, but perhaps not when you consider what happened to house prices shortly after she left office (for the benefit of an international audience, they tumbled and many people were left with negative wealth). So, "Thatcher presided over an 80% increase in personal wealth" could be one spin. "Thatcher presided over a dangerous economic bubble" would be another. Formerip (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Awww you stopped the indent chain! I've already changed the quote, unless it's been reverted. Hillbillyholiday 11:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

To flog a dead horse(meat burger) on this topic, it would doubtlessly be the Tory party that first misrepresented this, and other statistics. The Gilmour quote leaves you under no illusions that it's at least fudged or whatever, the source is sweet really, once read it colours all judgement on Tory claims with figures. But it's hardly a newsflash, I remember it occurring to me that politicians were liars when I was four years old. A general suggestion is to be extra careful with stats even when quoted by good sources, they are so easy to misrepresent and we all know what percentage of statistics are made up! Hillbillyholiday 11:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

From what I can see in the Google Books preview, the Gilmore quote was not made in reference to the 80% statistic that we are discussing, so combining the two in the suggested way seems a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. Hardly a neutral party to quote either, given he was pulled from Thatcher's cabinet and opposed many of her policies Jebus989 12:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, point taken here, the source of course is still perfectly valid, but a break in the sentence easily sorts the synthesis. Hillbillyholiday 12:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Gilmour was specifically talking about low-income families/housholds and noting that the method of publishing data had changed, making comparison difficult (possibly deliberately). To extrapolate to the position that all statistics from all sources about the Thatcher government are suspect is wholly invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.109.87 (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

We cannot mix unrelated sources like this. --John (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree, and splitting a sentence with a full-stop does not act as a magic wand.

I don't see any particular reason to doubt the statistic. But I think it is seriously wrong to just present an attention-grabbing number like this out of context. Formerip (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm gonna bring any further edits i think of making here first from now on, let consensus be reached by the far more experienced editors, and maybe let them add what they think necessary. I keep getting caught in edit-conflicts when i try (even here). I was going to replace it with the following (admittedly, i previously mangled the wording of the quote which is unforgivable really) any takers?:

"However, some(?) of the figures concerned with wealth, given are open to debate(?). as The Health minister under Thatcher Sir Ian Gilmour has noted stated: "Measuring poverty in the Thatcher era is difficult because of the inadequate, and sometimes deliberately misleading obfuscation, of government figures." Hillbillyholiday 12:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Its too strong a statement to be supported by a single source, especially when other sources cast doubt on it. I suggest we delete it, the stuff on share ownership is not controversial and can stay ----Snowded 12:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

this book is on 'British theatre' mentions 80%. But from what i can gather, it quotes Gilmour. I'm gonna bow out of this one now for a bit folks! Hillbillyholiday 12:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The Gilmour source doesn't even deal with the 80% claim. You can't use your own interpretation of one source to dismiss a second source on a different issue. Unless you have a source that shows that personal wealth (or whatever he is actually measuring) infact did not rise by 80%, there are no grounds to delete the passage.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Putting it there is using Misplaced Pages's voice to support a disputed claim. There are also weight issues. Maybe I should hunt down all the sourced comments about the poverty she created and add them in as well? It makes a nonsense of things. The stuff on share holding and council houses make the point well enough ----Snowded 13:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) That book, on a different subject, mentions it in passing but itself gives no reference for the information. I support leaving it out unless and until a better source can be found. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• The Marr source and the data it supports have passed peer review. We will not be removing it to pander for recentism. If there are reliable sources which contradict Marr's assertion, please bring them here and we can discuss them. --John (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The book is not a peer-reviewed source, but I think that misses the point.

It's a statistic which, presented out of context and without explanation, will tend to mislead the reader. It's an NPOV issue.

Firstly, many readers will think that the statistic means people were 80% wealthier in the sense that they had 80% more money to splash around. But the figure for that would be the increase in disposable income (if anyone can find that - in real terms - I wouldn't object to it going in the article).

Secondly, readers will assume that an 80% increase in personal wealth must be a good thing, but that isn't necessarily so. It's part of a broader picture. We should try to paint the whole picture, not just the detail that looks nicest. Formerip (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything ForerIP just said. Completely.Jasonnewyork (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• The Marr material is immediately followed by "Thatcher's premiership was also marked by high unemployment and social unrest, and many critics on the Left of the political spectrum fault her economic policies for the unemployment level; many of the areas affected by high unemployment as well as her monetarist economic policies have still not fully recovered and are blighted by social problems such as drug abuse and family breakdown." which provides balance. To remove the positive while leaving only the negative would be to damage the carefully honed NPOV of this article. I will not permit that to happen. --John (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would provide balance of a sort, but not the right sort, because it brings balance without clarity.

If we could source a statement such as "Economic policy under Thatcher led to an 80% increase in personal wealth, but this was largely supported by a housing boom which sowed the seeds of future economic decline", then I would describe that as balanced. Formerip (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

How is adding 'A housing boom which sowed the seeds of future economic decline' balanced? That's some dubious biased POV shiz going on there.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*2 The simple statement "Total personal wealth rose by 80 per cent." is ambiguous. If sourced fine, include it, but it would be preferable to qualify it, for example "Total personal wealth as measured by x,y,z rose by 80 per cent." Otherwise it is a rather abstract statement lacking readership clarity. Leaky Caldron 13:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, someone feel free to tell me to piss off, I just can't bloody leave! IMO John is absolutely right to leave the quote there until someone can directly challenge it for the reasons he stated, please note, i didn't delete John's reference. Clearly, I was a bit hasty in my earlier edits and misrepresented the Gilmour quote (lesson learnt!) - Having said that, I think the Gilmour quote should be in there (not necessarily next to the 80% bit) as a possible counterbalance. Hillbillyholiday 13:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Per Leaky Caldron and FormerIP. We should not be including facts that are subject to various interpretations, or difficulties of understanding, even when they are set out that way in reliable sources. Any reasonable reader would read the statement about the increase in personal wealth and say "What does that mean?" If it can't be explained, either from the Marr source or from other sources, it should be left out. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Concur----Snowded 14:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is the Marr source for those who do not have it. WWGB (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be really, really helpful if someone who has the book (yes, I know I can get it from the library, but to save time) could give the precise quote from Marr's book. Does he leave it as baldly unexplained as the summary suggests? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The proportion of adults holding shares rose from 7 per cent when Labour left office to 25 per cent when Thatcher did. Thanks to the "right to buy" policy, more than a million families purchased their council houses, repainting and refurbishing them and watching their value shoot up, particularly since they had been sold them at a discount of between 33 and 50 percent. The proportion of owner-occupied homes rose from 55 per cent of the total in 1979 to 67 per cent a decade later. And people did indeed become much wealthier, overall, during the Tory years. In real terms, total personal wealth rose by 80 per cent in the eighties, entirely changing the terms of trade of ordinary politics. Old Labour was killed off not in the Commons but in the shopping centre and the estate agents' office.

--John (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

An increase of 80% is entirely believable, and I'm not sure why some people think it is not. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but part of the issue is how meaningful and interpretable it is if it is just stuck out there on its own.

By way of comparison, wages in the Soviet Union increased dramatically in 1988 and 1989 (8% and 13% according to this source). That sounds like a good thing, but you can probably guess that it doesn't tell the whole story. Formerip (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

80% of what? Define "personal wealth". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? --John (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Assuming this is a serious question for a moment, here is a basic description. This is elementary stuff, Ghmyrtle. --John (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)Yes, but your latest edit is quite a helpful elaboration. Thank you. Why be obnoxious when you can be collaborative?Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

PS: To quote that article, "What is and is not personal wealth seems very straightforward, but it can be a surprisingly complicated matter". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

As it relates to companies being treated as individuals. Personal wealth is fairly simple; as the article says, it's liquid assets (cash, bank balances etc) + value of assets - debts. I apologise for being obnoxious; it was a lot of work to get this article into decent shape and I am not enjoying having to defend it against (no offence) everybody and their dog who suddenly want to turn it into a "kill the witch" party without even having read the sources. --John (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's about "kill the witch", John. It's a particular figure that seems to have been picked on the basis of sounding good, rather than conveying useful information. We could measure the short-term success of the economic policies of the 80s by looking at GDP or average incomes, for example, which would also show a success. But the personal wealth figure is misleading. Formerip (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Personal wealth is a redlink??!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don;t think the quote really supports a blank statement on personal wealth, it needs a lot of qualifications to make it understandable. For this sort of thing you really need a proper academic text not a journalist ----Snowded 16:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to bring your better sources to the table. --John (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Its the person inserting material who needs a source John. ----Snowded 16:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. That's

Fwiw, I empathize, but don't quite fully sympathize with you John, you correctly advized me to wait until all the hoo-hah died down in our discussion elsewhere. I've found it is easier said than done (walking away, that is) but you definitely have my respect for keeping going on the Thatcher mainspace (for how long now is it 'months' or 'years'?) Hillbillyholiday 16:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The added material above still does not qualify the 80% claim. While share ownership and council house ownership would be obvious factors it isn't implied that they were the cause of the 80% increase. What is needed is Marr's source. As a factual claim it is poorly written and unclear since the definition of personal wealth is not universally standard. Leaky Caldron 16:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree I think it should be removed until properly sourced, and Marr is not good enough and I think, looking at the discussion above, that this is the consensus. However lets see if John has calmed down when he returns. Feeling angry does not justify accusing experienced editors of fucking up an article just because they disagree with you ----Snowded 16:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Just think. Who do you think generates data of this type? Mr Stephen (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Like probably everyone here, i've got better things to do both here, and in real-life, than quibbling endlessly about one small sentence - can it be that hard for all you vastly experienced editors to reach Misplaced Pages:Consensus here and quickly move on? I've offered my opinion, there must be a way to incorporate John's source with a brief qualifier on the accuracy of said stat, without upsetting too many here? I reckon future historians will come to this very talk page when they want to study reaction to Thatcher's passing - so fix-up look-sharp everyone! Hillbillyholiday 17:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, please could editors take a look at this page , which explains what I have been trying to get at better than I've been able to. About halfway down, under the heading "The housing boom" there's a couple of graphs and some text. It tells us that "This boom in house prices caused a rise in household wealth and increased confidence". In other words, there is a relationship between house prices and personal wealth. In fact, you can see from figure 4 in this pdf that residential property is by far the biggest component of personal wealth in the UK. So, when house prices go up, so will personal wealth. Now look the graph on the webpage for house price inflation. You can see it is as high as 30% annually, which helps to explain the 80% growth in personal wealth for the decade. But look how it falls afterwards into negative territory. What we are looking at is a housing bubble inflating and bursting. So, the growth in personal wealth, while it is certainly a sign of a strong economy, is also a sign of an economy going wrong. The problem is that just pulling out the 80% figure without elaboration fails to tell us the whole story. Formerip (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice research. That's really the point here. Plopping in "80% growth of total wealth" without any context of the broader market and what is actually happening in the economy is such a misleading and intentionally skewed POV data point, and your commentary highlights that point exactly. This statistic should be removed based on NPOV.Jasonnewyork (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the endorsement. But I think I should say that there is no reason to suppose that any editor added this to intentionally skew or mislead. They most probably saw it in a book and thought "Wow! Cool stat!", which is perfectly reasonable. Formerip (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I assume in good faith that everything in the paragraph is covered by the Marr - specifically this bit: "Shares in the privatised utilities were sold below their market value to ensure quick and wide sales, rather than maximise national income"?? Hillbillyholiday 19:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Really, you would expect another source for all that information. Hillbillyholiday 19:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Some extra sources for y'all:

Another 80% reference = The economy under Mrs Thatcher, 1979-1990 "Total personal wealth rose by 80% in real terms, while real earnings went up by 25%." (page 172)

Some on poverty in UK as a balance = Tackling Inequalities: Where Are We Now and What Can Be Done, "The Breadline Britain surveys found that between 1983 and 1990 the number of people who could be objectively described as living in poverty increased by almost 50%." (page 43)

1983 = approx. 14% households in poverty = 7.5M people

1990 = approx. 20% households in poverty = 11 M people (page 43)

"Roughly 10 million people in 1990 could not afford adequate housing." (page 44)

And some useful economic graphs from the Grauniad Hillbillyholiday 08:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

So...? My opinion is that the current wording, as amended by John, is necessary and sufficient. But it would still be useful and interesting to know where this 80% figure came from - maybe buried in some old official statistics somewhere, or maybe just thought up by someone on the basis of who knows what, and later repeated by many others (including Marr) as fact. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The point is that this:

The percentage of adults owning shares rose from 7% to 25% during her tenure, and more than a million families bought their council houses, giving an increase from 55 per cent to 67 per cent in owner-occupiers from 1979 to 1990. The houses were sold at a discount of 33-55 per cent, leading to large profits for some new owners. Marr suggests that in consequence personal wealth rose by 80 per cent in real terms during the 1980s, mainly due to rising house prices and increased earnings. Shares in the privatised utilities were sold below their market value to ensure quick and wide sales, rather than maximise national income.

whole paragraph covers the financial status for the people during Thatch's term, has loads of figures contained (which we've been arguing over here for a day), and is only covered by one source. I'm not going to amend the entry, just wanted to provide some back up sources to be thorough. Hillbillyholiday 09:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

btw Ghmyrtle, please note John hasn't amended the entry since he left the discussion yesterday afternoon - you were here! Hillbillyholiday 09:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I meant this edit to the "Political legacy" section, which gave a bit more explanation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Reading the extract from the book somewhere above I don't think that it is accurate to state that "Marr suggests that in consequence personal wealth rose by 80% in real terms". Such a construction is WP:SYNTH. Why? Because the only connection is that the various economic data presented are in the same paragraph. But the crucial bit about 80% is out there in it's own little sentence. There is no connective substance that binds it or makes it dependent on the preceding stuff about share & home ownership. Leaky Caldron 09:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You need to be careful when comparing poverty and wealth. Wealth is an absolute measure; poverty is a relative concept. It is thus perfectly possible for everyone to get richer, yet the number of people in poverty to increase. Mr Stephen (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Could we not just use the 25% figure for earnings increase cited by Hillbillyholiday above? That's a bona fide measure of economic success, as opposed to the 80% figure which is arguably a measure of economic failure (because it is just a proxy for an overheating housing market)? Formerip (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

And do you do inflation adjusted earnings? Context is all on this one and the danger is a misleading statement ----Snowded 13:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The 25% is already adjusted for inflation. That's what "real earnings" (the wording of the source) means. Formerip (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest (again) using the Gilmour quote (mentioned yards above) to show that the stats are open to interpretation, then show what figures you like. Hillbillyholiday 13:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

This is still original research.

I think if we could access the Johnson book properly, it would be a much better source than Marr. Formerip (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Fine, but i think using the Gilmour quote is o.k.. Above, I implied linking it to the figures, but i meant to have the Gilmour stand alone, and let the reader draw their own conclusions r.e. the numbers in general. As a source within cabinet government (sacked or not) his voice carries some weight. Hillbillyholiday 13:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The quote again to save scrolling. Can't see too much wrong with this statement: Health minister under Thatcher Sir Ian Gilmour stated: "Measuring poverty in the Thatcher era is difficult because of the inadequate, and sometimes deliberately misleading obfuscation, of government figures." Hillbillyholiday 13:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Although, if only Gilmour had said "by" not "of" government figures, then the quote would be even better. Hillbillyholiday 13:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, well maybe that can be noted, but not in direct juxtaposition to any particular statistic. Formerip (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

While I think the current articulation of this data is OK, and I'd be fine leaving it in, it still seems quite clunky. I wonder if it just doesn't belong under a section entitled Economics under Thatcher, wherein the complete landscape is laid out. But I'm too lazy to do that, so unless anyone else is feeling ambitious, it seems OK (though still awkward to my eye) to leave it in.Jasonnewyork (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

What, you mean we would try to give a balanced overview of her economic policies and their effect in a single coherent section? It's a crazy idea, but I think it would be worth trying. Formerip (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Dating of main image on article

If Misplaced Pages aspires to be complete in details, I think the picture used for the sidebar should be dated and attributed. There are many public images of such a public person, and it would be appropriate to have them dated. I think the image in question must be an Official Portrait, but maybe post-premiership, so maybe there should be a caption with a link to an article about the tradition of official portraiture. Just a thought.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.59.240 (talk • contribs) 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, but the photo was provided by the Margaret Thatcher Foundation, without any details about the date, photographer or original purpose. Formerip (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Economic recovery and 1983 election victory

Hi. I was about to remove the suggestion in the lead that 'economic recovery' and the Falklands war led to a resurgence of support that led to the election victory in 1983 - but another editor beat me to to it. I've checked this out here and it is clear that immediately prior to the Falklands War in April 1982, Conservative support remained in the low 30's but by the end of April it had reached 43%, going on to hit 51% in May. That clearly demonstrates that the Falklands War was associated with a resurgence of support. There is no evidence of any 'resurgence of support' any time prior to this that could be attributed to 'economic recovery'. This of course is original research - but without clear sourcing to support the retention of 'economic recovery' as being responsible for a resurgence of support for the Conservatives prior to the 1983 election, it should clearly stay removed. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You'd need to actually read the article and you'd see where it was referenced later on. We don't normally need to repeat refs in the lead. Maybe we should. Ho-hum. --John (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I think there shoould be more on her almost going the way of Jeanne Shattock too? Basket _Feudalist 16:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, highly controversial articles, e.g. Evolution, Intelligent design, tend to have cited leads. Thatcher is divisive, but not that divisive. Why don't we just add a big comment at the top explaining that the lead summarises the article, and that sources for all claims should be found in the article text, but to feel free to challenge anything that isn't expanded on later? Adam Cuerden 17:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd want to see the text as well on 'economic recovery' can you pull out the text you are relying on please ----Snowded 17:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The citation appears to be Sanders, David; Ward, Hugh; Marsh, David (July 1987). "Government Popularity and the Falklands War: A Reassessment". British Journal of Political Science 17 (3): 28. The abstract supports the claim, but, coming from a science-editing background, I'm dubious of using a single article which admits to having conclusions differing from the normally-agreed upon ones to make statements of uncontested fact. Do we have anything else that reaches these conclusions? r, failing that, is there evidence that this article achieved widespread acceptance? Adam Cuerden 17:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec):Thanks, reading the abstract it makes it clear it is taking a contrarian view so I don't think we can depend on it. It cites other studies that come to different conclusions and heavily qualifies its conclusions. I'll read it at more leisure later but I don't think its sufficient to support the proposed text. ----Snowded 17:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

And, checking what cites it, this equally-notable article states its conclusions are wrong: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3276788 Adam Cuerden 18:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

bad link

The reference for:

"Details of Lady Thatcher's funeral had been agreed with her in advance."

requires a colon after the http 92.41.135.32 (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Leaky Caldron 21:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Political legacy

Does not seem to mention curbing the political power of the trade unions. As someone who lived through the 70s in UK, one of Thatcher's major achievements was to break the trade unions' control of Government. I suggest something like:

Thatcher's refusal to accept trade unions as partners in Government, unlike the Labour Governments of 1974-79, significantly weakened the unions' political power, and this effect has not been reversed subsequently. Trade union membership in UK has continued to fall: down 12% over the period 1993-2003, the greatest decline in any EU member state (other than the formerly-Communist states of eastern Europe). (Ref:http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2004/03/update/tn0403105u.htm) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.74.186 (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

My opinion may differ. But neither my opinion nor your opinion are relevant here. What is important is what sources say, and the article presents a reasonably balanced and neutral summary of those. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it fair and germane to attribute the continued decline in TU membership directly to her government when she had ceased to govern in 1990? Figures for the period 1979-1990 would be more germane.Cloptonson (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Total number of people at Saturday 13 April 6pm celebration party in Trafalgar Square? Total at all parties?

When these figures get reported, they should be mentioned in the article. There could easily be 50,000 people today in Trafalgar Square in London alone, and there have already been gatherings in dozens of other cities in Britain and further afield. We are talking about coaches being organised, coming to London from other places, such as Durham, Yorkshire, Wales, Brighton, Bristol, etc. This is a major event of unprecedented scale.Crebble (talk) 08:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

We should wait and see what happens, and report what sources say about it. Given that one of the (anti-)organisers is saying that "up to 2,000" may attend, it seems unlikely to be of "unprecedented scale". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

PS: Not much happening, it seems. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Keen on demonizing the Lady?

Cultural depictions

I've mentioned this on the appropriate talk page, but thought I'd do so here too as it's the main topic article. I'm concerned about the lede opening for this article: "Margaret Thatcher in the arts and popular culture was mostly seen as a hate-filled, miserly figure". Although it's sourced, it comes from an overseas newspaper and I think it needs a bit of investigation as it seems very non-neutral to me. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Bruges speech

The article says "During a 1988 speech in Bruges..." as though it were just any old speech. The address to the College of Europe was a landmark speech which marked a turning point in British-European relations. We urgently need a new article on that speech which can be linked from this sentence, which also needs to be rephrased to stress that it was THE speech. --Doric Loon (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Something must be wrong here

Right now this is written in the article: "Thatcher was not a candidate in the 1955 general election as it came fairly soon after the birth of her children. Later that year, she was narrowly defeated when she sought selection as the candidate for the Orpington by-election, 1955." But the Orpington by-election took place in January and the general election took place in May or am I wrong? Calle Widmann (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

She applied to be the candidate at the by-election at Orpington, and she said that she did not apply for the later General Election because it was too soon after the birth of her children. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Calle Widmann (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

POV-section

I do think the section on Thatcher's death is ridiculously POV - with street parties on her death, and protests during her funeral, that's so unusual as to be noteworthy. A balance will need struck, obviously, and we'd likely need to include some positive material to keep it balanced, but I think censoring the debate is simply not an option Misplaced Pages's NPOV rules allow. It's presented as a simple, mundane event, when it's unheard of for such things to happen. Adam Cuerden 14:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

it's unheard of for such things to happen Really? Who says so? You, or the reliable sources? If it's the latter, we could talk about adding something to the article. If it's just you, there are web hosts and blogging sites that can use your opinion, but Misplaced Pages can't. Meantime, don't think you can hold us hostage with a tag. The purpose of such a tag is to start a conversation. Consider it started. Where it goes next is up to you. --John (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The coverage of the protests speaks for itself. It is not a common event and reliable source both say so and reflect it. The article as it is now is biased against including a clearly notable aspect of her death and legacy out of some misguided sense of respect for the recently dead that has no place in an encyclopedia. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Bzzt. Not seeing those sources. --John (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

What you think doesn't make it so, so stop your daft tagging. Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

THE RELIABLE SOURCES SAY IT

Since you seem to want an exact phrasing describing the event as unusual, which is not part of the notability requirements, you know, and neither is it part of the NPOV requirememnts - indeed, requiring it for positive material but not negative goes directly against the NPOV requirements... well, most newspapers have not felt the urge to state the obvious that something is unusual. It being unusual is a basic requirement for newsworthiness. But, as you can see, it's explicitly spelled out as unusual in reliable sources. Your move. Adam Cuerden 20:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Well, thanks for coming here with your sources rather than sticking a tag on the article. Let's look at the sources in detail.

1. Your first source is weak. It's American, and the subject was British. As a news aggregator, according to our article, "it aggregates news and opinions from print, online, television and radio outlets". Is this an opinion piece? It's actually a bloody interesting resource, and I thank you for pointing me to it, but as a reliable source on this article I have got to reject it.
2. Your second source is an excellent one, but it contradicts your assertion about uniqueness: Of course, Margaret Thatcher's death wasn't the first to spark a Twitter frenzy. Michael Jackson's death was "stratospheric" and Amy Winehouse was huge too
3. Your third source is also American. It does indeed say the reaction to her death was "unusual". It's a good source. Nevertheless, it is hardly the claim of it's unheard of for such things to happen that you came here with, is it?

• Overall: Close, but no cigar. Remember, we don't need to be on the cutting edge here; as an encyclopaedia we have the luxury of deliberation. There is no deadline and I'd rather get this right than rush to press with something trashy and breathless. Don't be discouraged, as I do think there will be a consensus to include something proportionate and encyclopedic about the negative reactions to her death. Let's keep talking. --John (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're clearly moving the goalposts. Would anything, in fact, satisfy you?

In the second source, you ignore the actual quote saying it's unique, and decide that because it mentions the almost entirely positive twitter storms about Jackson and Winehouse, the much more divisive Thatcher death isn't unique, even though the article says it is.

Misplaced Pages does cover things even if they may have happened once or twice before, in a different country, in a different context, with different emotions. Adam Cuerden 21:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Adam Cuerden 21:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, the only people claiming this isn't an NPOV problem are Malleus and John; who are basically engaged in shouting down anyone else. Adam Cuerden 22:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Whereas you're basically engaged in making a complete arse of yourself. So far as I can tell. Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It isn't an NPOV problem. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll second that. Hillbillyholiday 23:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

After reading the comments from Adam Cuerden, John and Malleus and reading the article, I fail to see how the Seaction on her Death could possibly be made any more neutral. The reactions to her death that Adam is referring to is included in the political legacy section, "Thatcher's death prompted mixed reactions, including reflections of criticism as well as praise. Groups of detractors celebrated her death in Brixton, Leeds, Bristol and Glasgow, and thousands gathered in Trafalgar Square to celebrate her demise and protest against her legacy."; and in the main article on her death the protests at her funeral are covered, as well as other positive and negative reactions to her death. The Article certainly has it's problems, but the Death Section does not have an NPOV Problem. King of Nothing (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I find it odd that this and this were not included. Those certainly seem notable. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

That should go here - Hillbillyholiday 01:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue raised by Adam is a question of Neutral point of view. The question is not whether the reactions to Thatcher's death are unique — and John's insistence on evidence of such is unhelpful. Nor is the question whether the reactions are notable — they most certainly are, as is attested by not only by the sources Adam has cited above but also by the many sources referring to negative reactions on the Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher article. The question is whether this article is balanced. This means: "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Let's all please keep perspective on this. —sroc (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Good old John. Nice to see the Houdini-esque argumentation. It would be interesting for us, and a learning curve for him, to demonstrate where in WP's definition on RS nationality gets a mention for relevance (re: "It's American, and the subject was British"). Basket _Feudalist 10:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll summarise for the hard-of-reading: "Don't be discouraged, as I do think there will be a consensus to include something proportionate and encyclopedic about the negative reactions to her death. Let's keep talking." It might be worth trying at this point to draft what sort of wording we want. It would be one sentence long, I think. --John (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

1. "Little sympathy for Margaret Thatcher among former opponents". The Guardian. Retrieved 8 April 2013.
2. "Margaret Thatcher dead: Yorkshire pit village destroyed by former Prime Minister celebrates". Mirror. Retrieved 9 April 2013.
3. "Durham coalfield rejoices at Margaret Thatcher's death". The Northern Echo. Retrieved 9 April 2013.
4. Tom Farmery (April 9 2013). "'Tramp the dirt down': a nation remains divided in Margaret Thatcher's death". The Times. Many in the crowds opened champagne and sang anti-Thatcher ... {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
5. "Left's chorus of hatred: Champagne in the streets, students union cheers and vile internet taunts". Daily Mail. 8 April 2013.
6. "Little sympathy for Margaret Thatcher among former opponents". The Guardian. Retrieved 8 April 2013.
7. "Margaret Thatcher dead: Yorkshire pit village destroyed by former Prime Minister celebrates". Mirror. Retrieved 9 April 2013.
8. "Durham coalfield rejoices at Margaret Thatcher's death". The Northern Echo. Retrieved 9 April 2013.
9. Tom Farmery (April 9 2013). "'Tramp the dirt down': a nation remains divided in Margaret Thatcher's death". The Times. Many in the crowds opened champagne and sang anti-Thatcher ... {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
10. ^ "Left's chorus of hatred: Champagne in the streets, students union cheers and vile internet taunts". Daily Mail. 8 April 2013.
11. Paul Cockerton (9 April 2013). "Margaret Thatcher dead: Street parties held across the UK to mark passing of PM". Daily Mirror.
12. Sam Casey (9 April 2013). "Leeds street party celebrates Thatcher death". Yorkshire Evening Post.
13. Alex Stevenson (9 April 2013). "Video: Police move in as Brixton celebrates Thatcher's death". politics.co.uk.
14. "The flames of hatred: 30 years of loathing for Baroness Thatcher explodes in celebrations of her death. Will funeral now be targeted?". Daily Mail. 9 April 2013.
15. "No UK taboo: Unlike in America, some Britons happy to publicly celebrate former leader's death". Washington Post. Associated Press. April 9, 2013.
16. Mayer Nissim (April 8 2013). "'Daily Telegraph' closes Margaret Thatcher comments due to abuse". Digital Spy. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Good article reassessment nominees
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (peerage) articles
• High-importance biography (peerage) articles
• Peerage and Baronetage work group articles
• GA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• High-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class Lincolnshire articles
• Mid-importance Lincolnshire articles
• WikiProject Lincolnshire articles
• GA-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Top-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• GA-Class Cold War articles
• High-importance Cold War articles
• Cold War task force articles
• GA-Class London-related articles
• High-importance London-related articles
• GA-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• GA-Class University of Oxford articles
• Low-importance University of Oxford articles
• GA-Class University of Oxford (colleges) articles
• WikiProject University of Oxford articles
• GA-Class Women's History articles
• High-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles
• GA-Class Conservatism articles
• Top-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• GA-Class Women scientists articles
• Low-importance Women scientists articles
• WikiProject Women scientists articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Selected anniversaries (May 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2011)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2012)