Talk:Margaret Thatcher

!

Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism. Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting [[User talk:{{{1}}}|the protecting sysop]].

Thatcher won elections as Prime Minister from 1979-1990, however, prior to her politcal career she performed in adult movies under the name of "Margaret Snatcher".' Next to Winston Churchill many consider Thatcher to be the most important British political leader of the twentieth century.

Goodness! Doesn't anyone do any checking?

--TK 19:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

You just did! Thanks. Cracker^talk 19:57, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

TK - I am confused as to why you have reverted my expansion of this article - whilst a firm supporter of most of Mrs Thatcher's reforms I do not feel an entry that does not mention the controversy caused in parts of the UK or the manner of her departure can be considered encyclopedic, since so much current British policy and policy in other countries with Thatcherite governments is still inspired by the reactions to the more unpopular policies of her final term of office? Tracy C Copeland 07:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Agreed; there was nothing there I'd class as 'editorial.' I've restored your material. Tsumetai 08:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

• Material was reverted back, and edited again. You seem at odds with the Sysop, Aschlafly, and his instructions to me. --TK 20:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

"Alcoholism"

Just to clarify - I have mentioned her alcoholism whilst in office not out of prurience, but because it has a direct bearing on public perceptions of her in her final term. Her drink problem whilst in office is a matter of public record and I've cited reputable news sources as such. The citation to the left-wing "Class War" party is included not because I support them in any way but to illustrate the unusually high degree of polarisation she caused - no other Conservative leader, including Bush in the US, appears to have generated such hatred, as opposed to dislike and disagreement, from left wingers.Tracy C Copeland 08:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

• I received this response from the Sysop, Andrew: "So edit them, please. That's what wiki software is for. If you encounter a locked page, which I doubt for Margaret Thatcher, then the talk page is the appropriate place for your comments. Claims of alcoholism appear like gossip to me, by the way, which would be against our rules"--Aschlafly 20:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I have not reverted TK's deletion of my edit on her alleged alcoholism but I disagree that it's gossip. Whether or not it was true, the fact that reputable news sources were claiming that she was an alcoholic (examples at [1], [2]) had a direct bearing on her sudden drop in support in her third term and the Conservative Party's removing her as leader, which in turn had major consequences for conservative politics worldwide. I feel that an article on Thatcher that does not mention her forced removal from office is like an article on Nixon or Clinton that failed to mention impeachment.

I am confused at TK's allegation that I "cited Wikipedia as a source" in this article - my edit contained three citations, one to the BBC, one to the Guardian newspaper and one to a left wing site, intended to illustrate the type of left-wing opposition to Thatcher and clearly marked as such. I also would like to point out to TK that I am not a 'disgruntled Scottish liberal' as he implies in his edit summaries - while I grew up in Norfolk, about as far from Scotland as it is possible to be in the UK, I now live and work in the US, and have never been 'a liberal' in the US sense of the word. In the British, libertarian sense of the word, then yes, I am a liberal but so I would guess are 90% of contributors here.Tracy C Copeland 06:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

• Tracy, although I might have mistook you for a Scottish liberal, I wasn't confusing your edits with those, in many places, by others...citing Wikipedia. Sorry if my posting of Andrew Schlafly's note about Wikipedia was taken as aimed at you. It certainly was not. I am however researching several sources to vet the alcoholism deal. Scotsman.com isn't actually what one would consider mainstream media, such as the London Times, is it? If you will email me, I can give you my IM and perhaps you could enlighten me more on this....sound fair? Please understand that a drink or five isn't exactly noteworthy where it concerns politicians, anywhere in the world, and I believe Sir Winston and President Roosevelt might have out-drank Lady Thatcher 3 to 1. and encyclopedia's the world over haven't deemed it germain to include in their pieces on them, other than a side-note. I cannot find anything concrete, from a reputable source that claims the main reason she was ousted was drinking. Thanks, my name is Terry, btw.......... --TK 07:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Hi Tracy. I've looked at your two quotes above and neither of them uses the word "alcoholism", so - at least from the two sources you quote above - that would appear to be (shall we say) an over interpretation on your part. Additionally I'm not sure that I'd regard either "The Scotsman" or "The Guardian" as particularly neutral sources as far as Mrs thatcher is concerned anyway. Finally, in the light of her many accomplishments such as winning the miner's strike, winning the Falklands war, reducing the power of the trades unions, giving people the right to own their own council houses etc etc, an attempt to give significant space to an unfounded allegation that she was an alcoholic simply looks like an attempt to damage her reputation. --British_cons (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia Citations/Sourcing

Since the Conservapedia is billed as an alternative to Wikipedia, which is deemed by the Founders as culturally, religiously and politically biased, why in God's name are editors using information from that source to substantiate their information/edits here?

Many of us start from the premise Wikipedia is a suspect source. Please find alternative source information, otherwise there isn't really a point to this "alternative" is there? I am seeing editing here that uses citations from the same author's work at Wikipedia, or quoting material not properly sourced on Wikipedia. That simply isn't an acceptable practice, and is intellectually dishonest.

--TK 19:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

• You're right. Wikipedia is NOT an acceptable source or authority. Please edit the offending pages and alert the contributors. The mistakes could have been innocent, of course.--Aschlafly 19:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

AustinM

Is there some reason that you failed to explain your wholesale removal of material here? When editing, removing, one is expected to leave notes. --TK 11:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree - he has also deleted the entire entry for John Major, which I have reverted. Tracy C Copeland 12:27, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

suspected vandalism and spoof articles. I did search for references to alcoholism for thatcher and could not find any which were not from scurrilous left wing journals. As a matter of course I rv all edits by the user. I will ban if such behaviour continues. --AustinM 13:35, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

AustinM - I've provided 2 citations from major & reputable UK newspapers (The Scotsman and The Guardian) as examples. As I posted above when originally adding this paragraph it does not allege that Thatcher was an alcoholic but that mainstream UK news media were saying she was which had a direct bearing on the Conservative Party's decision to remove her from office. In light of your remarks about my 'vandalism', I see that you have replaced my lengthy entry on John Major - one of the longest serving Conservative Prime Ministers of the 20th century - with the single line "He achieved very little". Tracy C Copeland 15:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

• Tracy, read above and edit in the caption where you are responded to, please? :p The Scotsman is judged NOT to be mainstream media, and the Sysadmin, has ruled it it gossip.---- AUSTIN: Please provide a reason for your removal of the paragraphs, pertient to Thatcher, that you removed, as requested, or I will revert it back. You are a Sysop...please do try to communicate!

I plan to leave this article well alone as I have no intention of starting a Wikipedia style reversion war. Austin, I have replied to you three times, on your talk page, my talk page and talk:John Major. I also wonder how The Scotsman - the largest circulation non-tabloid newspaper in the country - can possibly be 'non mainstream'? Terry as per your request above (sorry I have only just noticed), I can be contacted via email, the address on here should be valid, however in light of the fact that every single change I have made to date appears to be being reverted I think it's unlikely I will be staying here! Tracy C Copeland 19:20, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

• Tracy, I shall look for the email. Takes some getting used to, this place, and I at least, am interested in learning about this Thatcher information. I too have had the experience you mention, these syops here just will not communicate at all, nor explain what they do. Austin removed several paragraphs I added about Thatcher, not even leaving a note as to why. That is really poor judgement, and I have written to (ASchlafly) Andrew Schlafly about such matters, and I suggest you do. Rob is the only sysop who at least bothered to post. --TK 19:36, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

My apologies everyone my conncetion has been down so I have not been able to respond. I was removing edits by Tracy as I repeatedly tried to find mainstream confirmation of her edits and couldn't. My understanding of Thatchers removal was that it was due to her losing control of her cabinet and being percieved as being out of touch. Alcoholism did not feature. Although her husband liked a drink it has to be said. Please carry on editing and I will be more careful next time. TK you can find a apology from me on your talk pages. regards --AustinM 11:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

• Austin, all's well that ends well, I say! Thanks for being so dedicated and chasing her down! Send me an email from here, and I will shoot you my IM handle on AIM, as we both seem to be around the late, early, whatever hours, and maybe keeping in touch, we can work better to foil those trolls. Same for you, Conservative & Cracker. --TK 15:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Is this a joke?

"Also Thatcher supported the United States actions against the Communists lead by President Ronald Reagan. "

Ronald Reagan did not lead the Communists! Myk 19:45, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

AGAINST Cracker^talk 19:46, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

• You guys need to go back, and see all the material Austin removed, with no explanation....**rolls eyes**--TK 20:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, now that I've had a look at it, one does wonder why all of that was removed. Without, as you say, any explanation. Bit strange. Can we have an explanation? --British_cons (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

• Doesn't seem as if we are important enough to be responded to, eh? Most of these people are running about like chickens with their heads cut off, without any proper procedures for communication. --Terry 23:10, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Finally. Not like Wikipedia at all. --Cracker^talk 23:14, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

So can the stuff be re-inserted? (I'm a bit new at this) The vast majority of the stuff was very good. If there are individual points we disagree with we can discuss them here. --British_cons (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

• Well, I was waiting to hear from Austin...but seems to be hiding under his desk... ;-) --TK 10:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

It looks open for editing to me. --Cracker^talk 11:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Remember: Citing truth that isn't "conservative enough" = vandalism. Doubleplus goodthink! --Cracker^talk 11:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

• ROFL! I'll revert it back after my breakfast, or you can, Cracker. ;-) Maybe that will smoke sysop Austin out. :p --TK 11:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Stifled the British coal and newspaper industries?

I thought this was Conservapedia nbot socialapedia and to claim that her fight against the unions stifled the coal and newspaper industries is nothing more than socialist propaganda. You only have to look at Rupert murdoch tom also realise it was untrue propaganda as, of course, her fight against the unions is what re-invigorated Britain, SqueakBox 20:26, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think that anyone - right or left - would deny that she stifled the coal industry and the newspaper unions - these are probably the two most significant achievements of her time in office, even more than privatization! The only thing left and right would differ on on whether it was justified. Tracy C Copeland 13:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, unions in general were a lot less powerful when she left office, and the Coal and Newspaper ones were weakened more than most. So I'd say that "stifled" was relatively moderate language. Words like "crushed" or, perhaps even better, "emasculated" spring eagerly to ones lips. --British_cons (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

• Squeakbox, what was said is, she fought the unions, not the coal and newspaper industry. We had a few vandals who were re-writing the page to better suit their liking, not the facts. As Time magazine said of her "Champion of free minds and markets, she helped topple the welfare state and make the world safer for capitalism." And I say here! bloody here! --TK 15:52, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Dumezil22

Please do NOT make surreptitious tense changes, that are misleading and inaccurate. Among the changes that bothered me the most:

1: You removed "corrupt" from the line about the coal and newspaper unions, and corrupt, indeed, they were.

2: You changed a paragraph to make it appear Thatcher was defeated for another term as PM. She was not. She withdrew from consideration, because on the first vote her opponet came within only a few votes of defeating her, and after she and her advisors decided she would not win on the 2nd ballot. To state she was defeated is inaccurate and misleading. A party willing to allow her to withdraw, rather than suffer humiliation at being voted out, holds someone in very high regard. --TK 18:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

• This is an American Conservapedia. Her maiden name was Roberts, and thus it is included before her married name. In America. Where this is hosted, that is what we do. If you are unsure, please stop editing, or ask, here, for advice. It is overboard to even suggest she is arguably the best PM in history, great as I believe her to be, and many her accomplishments. Remember Americans have a different style of writing than in the UK, and the rules here state that is the writing and spelling style. I must say you are snide in saying you are "tidying up" and then making major changes, rather than discuss them before like you have been invited to do. --TK 07:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry you regard my edits as inappropriate and "snide". Personally, I'm surprised you find them so unacceptable, and your wholesale revert seems unnecessary to me. I don't want to get into a revert war, however. On your specific points:

1. The British Conservative critique of the unions is not that they were corrupt, but that they were Neanderthal and socialist (I can only recall one instance of union corruption). I'm not sure what your source is here.

2. I stated that Lady T was never defeated in a general election, and I did not state that she was defeated in the leadership election. I'm surprised that you apparently seem to object to my statement that she was removed from office by her MPs. I would respectfully suggest that you haven't correctly understood the dynamics of the 1990 leadership election or the circumstances of her withdrawal. "If you are unsure, please ask, here, for advice...." ;-)

3. I'm happy for people to remove Britishisms from my edits. However, to label a Brit with a distinctively American form of name that she has never used in her life seems incorrect. After all, if Conservapedia was South American, she wouldn't be described as "Margaret Roberts de Thatcher". --Dumezil22 14:05, 18 March 2007 (GMT)

• 1, Corrupt is corrupt, no? The Times says they were corrupt.

• 2, She was NEVER removed!! Try to get it! She declined to stand for a second vote, when her advisors and she realized she wouldn't have the votes! THAT MEANS SHE WAS NOT REMOVED, But DECLINED TO STAND FOR A VOTE! It is the difference between being sacked, or allowed to resign!

• 3, It means not a wit where someone is from. Here the rules are, use American spelling and customs. Start your own UK Conservapedia, and enforce your customs there. --TK 10:34, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

TK, if you'd like to make your knowledge of the 1990 leadership election even more extensive and formidable, I recommend A Conservative Coup by Alan Watkins, which also has other information about Lady T. It's by a liberal journalist, but it's quite interesting. I understand that the original title was A Conservative Who Was Allowed to Resign by a Party that Held Her in Very High Regard.

Well, I've done the maths, and I think my labour here is finished. I won't add any more colour to this article, and I'll leave TK to the defence of Lady T's honour. I'm going to log off now and enjoy having a fag. --Dumezil22 14:46, 18 March 2007 (GMT)

• Pity you couldn't be bothered to follow the source links. It is 10 Downings own website where it explains about her not standing for the second vote. I think users of this wiki will be more inclined to believe that source, wot? And as the book title you recommend says exactly what I have been saying, I guess there isn't a need to look at it, eh? Since she did what she did, it is technically what it is. It would be intellectually dishonest to say they forced her out, since she didn't allow that to happen. Introducing comments that I deleted, because I thought better of making them, letting them remain, only makes you a very small, petty creature. If you think it embarasses me, you are right. If you received some satisfaction from it, I shall pray for you. --TK 11:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

You're right, I shouldn't have quoted your deleted comments. While I thought they were unfair, I've removed them now, and I apologise. As to the rest, I enjoy political history, and the events of November 1990 would be interesting to discuss further. They (and their aftermath and consequences) may at some point deserve their own section of this article, when it grows and develops. Let's leave it for the moment, though.

Maybe a more constructive line of enquiry would be to ask what amendments to the intro you would support making? I still think it's not in a satisfactory state at the moment. One suggestion would be to split it into separate sub-paragraphs. Also, I'm now going to add a skeleton section on Lady T's pre-1979 career, which isn't covered at present. --Dumezil22 17:16, 18 March 2007 (GMT)

• I've asked a few people about this, specificically your question, so give me a day or two. Thanks for addding the section pre-79 info! Good show! --TK 01:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

---

---

I tried to add some useful additions to the pre-1979 section explaining the background to the Brighton bomb but it was removed due to 'lack of citation'. I'm new here - how do you add citations? User:Commandment9

• Commandment9, after you add whatever it is you want to, copy and paste the URL to wherever it is you sourced your contribution from, say, you read it in the NY Times, you would copy and paste the URL right after your addition, and put brackets [ like this ] around it, and the software will automatically format the link, and number it. Citations are added to back-up what is posted, as opposed to opinion, which has no place in an encyclopedia, generally. See the "Help" link to the left of this page, to learn about how to edit and do all kinds of things. --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 09:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Terry thanks for explaining that. I can't do anything on this page as it's now protected but I'll try to remember about citations in future. To whoever removed my paragraph on the 1981 IRA Hunger Strike, I was only trying to put the later references to the Brighton Bomb into context as the bomb was a response by the IRA to what they saw as Margaret Thatcher letting the hunger strikers die. It was of course simply an early example of her not giving in to blackmail.

• If you copy the citation here, I can paste it back into the document. No problem. Glad to have you here, btw, welcome! --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 18:58, 4 April 2007 (EDT)