Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 → Archive 25

Health

I'm unhappy with the Health section, which is far too intrusive for my taste. Is there any legitimate reason to keep it? Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The section is intrusive, and is a magnet for recentism. I've cut it back substantially and suggest that if there is any merit in what is left, it might be integrated into other sections. Having said that, we should bear in mind that there will be notable health issues to add to the article in future. Life is a terminal illness which afflicts us all. Geometry guy 22:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
True, but it's hardly a surprise that an 85-year-old has suffered/is suffering from some medical problems, one of which will no doubt be terminal. The same goes for all of us of course, we'll all suffer from a terminal medical condition one day. Probably. Unless we become one of the nosferatu. Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I had a look at the Encyclopedia Brittanica article earlier this evening. All it has to say about Thatcher's health is this: "Following a series of minor strokes, Thatcher retired from public speaking in 2002". I really can't see that we need to say any more. Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes I agree with that, but trimming and merging may make the article easier to maintain in future. By the way, did you check out the image choices? I was surprised to see Nancy Reagan twice, but there are other biases towards the US impression of Thatcher which need to be addressed. Geometry guy 00:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the images, but I expect we'll have some work to do there as well. This is looking like a bigger job even than I'd imagined, and we haven't even really looked seriously at the pov charge yet. Although that was what triggered the GAR I'd have to say that this is eye-wateringly far away from being a GA for all sorts of reasons; I'd never pass an article that relied on Encarta as a source, for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the POV issue is the least of the problems. As I go through the article, my plan is to eliminate citations to tertiary sources like EB and Encarta as well as to partisan websites and blogs. One section down, many still to go... Geometry guy 01:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a formidable subject to research; my local library has more than 40 books on Margaret Thatcher! Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Well done to Malleus and others for taking a hack at this horrible article, and to User:One Night in Hackney for flagging up the problems a while ago. I feel slightly bad because this article was vaguely on my list since November. As I have often noticed, if you ignore a job long enough here somebody else will do it, and often even better. I might even join in myself! --John (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The more the merrier. This is going to be a pretty big job, and it might be an idea at some point to allocate responsibility for different sections to different editors. Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Just noting here (via Gguy's talk page) that I'm also happy to contribute in whatever limited way I can (prose, polish and supplying tea and biscuits mainly - I don't have the time to do much in the way of digging up sources and adding content). If Malleus or someone is taking the lead on coordinating all this I'll follow whatever orders are given; otherwise I'll just chip in as I see fit :) EyeSerenetalk 18:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly not in charge of anything here, but one thing you might like to think about doing is looking critically at sections like Relationship with the Queen. Do we really need any of that tabloid press speculation? If we do, could it be summarised and integrated into a better place? The more I look at this article the flabbier it appears to be, so any help in making it leaner would be appreciated. Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

A bizarre observation and the beginnings of a plan

Has anyone else noticed that large chunks of this article have been copy-and-pasted from Premiership of Margaret Thatcher? In fact, bizarrely some sections of this article (which with its hat note is clearly claiming to be a summary of her career as Prime Minister) are actually longer than the corresponding sections in the main article. So what I've started to do is to pull together the major themes of her premierships instead of treating each of her three terms in isolation, topics like the economy and taxation, relationship with Europe and so on. But perhaps it would be a good idea if we could agree on what a list of the major themes ought to contain. I'm rather unconvinced that it would include South Africa or Hong Kong, for instance, as the article presently does. Thoughts? Malleus Fatuorum 18:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm about halfway through reorganising the Prime Minister (1979–1990) section thematically rather than by each of her terms. It's my intention to lose the Second government (1983–1987) and Third government (1987–1990) subsections after integrating what needs to kept from those as well. I'm aware that though that this is fairly radical, so I'll stop here to allow others time to look at how this is developing and maybe offer a yay or nay as to whether they agree this is the way to go. Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The approach may be a bit radical, but it is also leading to article improvement, and I would generally support going with the flow in edits to the article, while discussing on the talk page how we might eventually structure the material.
The central portion of this article clearly has to be considered in tandem with Premiership of Margaret Thatcher. I have already used the latter to inspire improvements of the article here.
Deciding exactly how to organize this material is difficult (see User talk:Geometry guy#Maggie for one discussion) and it is likely that the Premiership article and this one will need different solutions. One solution is to present the premiership in purely thematic terms. An alternative is to proceed chronologically. Or we can do both, but preferably not at the same time in the same article!
As this is a biography, one idea would be to present the basic facts of the premiership in concise form chronologically. The cut material would then be moved to a thematic description of premiership, akin to "Legacy" but with the emphasis on factual rather than evaluative material. An entirely thematic presentation of the premiership might be more appropriate for the Premiership article. Alternatively, the latter could contain a detailed chronology, and this one could focus on the themes, which may be the current trajectory.
In either case, we will need to distinguish between Thatcher and her premiership. Events beyond Thatcher's control have a different significance and weight in an article about her than in an article about her period of government. Geometry guy 23:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
It is difficult, you're right, and you're also right that this article has to be considered in tandem with her premiership article, which also needs work. After I posted I realised that I've almost finished reorganising her premiership thematically anyway, so I'll press on with that pending further discussion. My overarching view is that this article ought to focus on Thatcher's involvement with and input to each of those themes rather than the themes themselves if that makes sense. I think that the chronological approach might well be the best for her premiership article, but not for the premiership section in this one. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Difficult though it may be, I encourage and support you pressing on with a thematic approach to the premiership in this article. Geometry guy 23:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree that biography should be thematic, and focussed on her involvement, while premiership should be chronological (first govt, second govt etc), then perhaps themed within each govt. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I was suggesting the other way round, a thematic premiership section within an overall chronological biography. Malleus Fatuorum 10:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Approve the restructure. Keep up the good work. --John (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think logically bios pretty much have to be organised chronologically, though it's a good idea to treat the premiership thematically. It's right that the focus should be on Thatcher's involvement only though. The article is certainly looking tighter - nice work so far. EyeSerenetalk 08:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Further thoughts on organisation: would it be too radical to suggest losing the sub-section headings under "Foreign affairs"? For me the potential difficultly with the sub-headings is that (1) no other section within "Prime Minister (1979–1990)" is subdivided that way; and (2) it begs the question "if X why not Y?" I think the obvious example is the Falklands war, which Thatcher constantly harked back to for the rest of her term in office with references to the "Falklands spirit". In Battle for the Falklands (Hastings & Jenkins. ISBN 033051363X. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)) Simon Jenkins claims that she was never good at handling her large, fractious cabinet and much preferred the small war council she headed during the conflict and the state of grace over reduced scrutiny that was tolerated by parliament during war but not in peacetime. That might make a nice addition actually, if only I could source it properly (my books are in storage at the mo so I've quoted from memory). EyeSerenetalk 09:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with losing the sub-section headings under Foreign affairs, and I've taken them out. Malleus Fatuorum 10:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks good - if we decide the section should be further trimmed, I think that will make it easier to do as well. EyeSerenetalk 14:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I've located the passage in my copy and am about to add to the Legacy section from it. --John (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Done. As with any of the edits I have made, please feel free to refine or undo them as you wish. --John (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the NPOV tag

Well, the article is looking a hell of a lot better for its spring cleaning, and well done to MF, GG and others for the sterling work they have done towards trimming and restructuring the article. I think it is now time to look at the thirteen sections above starting here. I'm going to have a preliminary hack at these; it may be that some have already been addressed in the work that has already been done. We can continue there I think; discussion here may best be restricted to the validity of this approach. --John (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea; I'd really like to get rid of that pov tag. Malleus Fatuorum 14:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll do some more work on it today. From a first glance it looks like a lot of ONiH's points may already have been addressed in the course of the rewrite. --John (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I am going to take it down as I see no objection here and the article as been completely rewritten, in some cases specifically to address the points that ONiH raised, in others through the course of normal editing. --John (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I just read the rewritten article and it was really improved , many thanks to Malleus and John and Geometry Guy and all the other contributors to the rewrite - when editing calms down to a trickle I will request a GA review to reassess the articles WP:GA status. Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 60.240.237.227, 16 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please update the titles section to be more detailed. Id est, it doesn't state when Margaret Thatcher was a FRS. Refer to http://www.short-biographies.com/biographies/MargaretThatcher.html NB: 109 reference is discontinued.

Current state

  • Miss Margaret Roberts (13 October 1925 – 13 December 1951)
  • Mrs Denis Thatcher (13 December 1951 – 8 October 1959)
  • Mrs Denis Thatcher, MP (8 October 1959 – 22 June 1970)
  • The Rt Hon. Margaret Thatcher, MP, PC (22 June 1970 – 7 December 1990)
  • The Rt Hon. Margaret Thatcher, OM, MP, PC (7 December 1990 – 4 February 1991)
  • The Rt Hon. Lady Thatcher, OM, MP, PC (4 February 1991 – 16 March 1992)
  • The Rt Hon. Lady Thatcher, OM, PC (16 March 1992 – 26 June 1992)
  • The Rt Hon. The Baroness Thatcher, OM, PC (26 June 1992 – 22 April 1995)
  • The Rt Hon. The Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC (since 22 April 1995)

Titles Lady Thatcher has held from birth, in chronological order:

Recommended (Please change to)

  • Miss Margaret Roberts (13 October 1925–1951)
  • Mrs Denis Thatcher (1951–8 October 1959)
  • Mrs Denis Thatcher, MP (8 October 1959–22 June 1970)
  • The Right Honourable Margaret Thatcher, MP (22 June 1970–30 June 1983)
  • The Right Honourable Margaret Thatcher, FRS, MP (30 June 1983-7 December 1990)
  • The Right Honourable Margaret Thatcher, OM, FRS, MP (7 December 1990–4 February 1991)
  • The Right Honourable Lady Thatcher, OM, FRS, MP (4 February 1991–9 April 1992)
  • The Right Honourable Lady Thatcher, OM, FRS (9 April 1992–26 June 1992)
  • The Right Honourable The Baroness Thatcher, OM, PC, FRS (26 June 1992–22 April 1995)
  • The Right Honourable The Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS (22 April 1995)

Ryanmurphymoore (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Not done. The reference you cite appears to be a mirror of an earlier version of this article. --John (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 19/GA3

Negotiate with "terrorists"

This article said "She felt Britain should not negotiate with terrorists". Correction: with what she claimed were terrorists. Less of the jingoistic rightwing nonsense. The native Irish forces of resistance to British colonial occupation will always be freedom fighters in their own country, particularly when resisting Margaret Thatcher, authoriser of a shoot-to-kill policy against Irish people, supporter of Apartheid, the Indonesian genocide of the East Timorese and Pinochet's fascist régime. Whatever happened to NPOV in this article? 86.42.30.9 (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

How to win an argument in one sentence, and lose it again in the next but one... NPOV works both ways.
Having said that, the relevant passage makes no sense, as it says she "felt" something, and held the view "in public", but nevertheless the British Government made contact with the republican movement. They would hardly have done this against her wishes, so presumably she approved this. I can't see how you can have a reliable source for her feeling one thing and doing another. I'm inclined to see if I can find a quote from her on this which can presumably use her words (if they were her words), and if it can't be found, rewrite the passage in a more logical way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Ho hum. On inspection, the word "terrorists" used in the source cited isn't attributed to Thatcher at all, but to Peter Hitchens. On that basis, I'm going to delete the relevant part of the sentence entirely. If somebody can find a proper reliable source for her making such a statement, they can of course restore something similar, with the correct citation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happened to NPOV? It gave in to the most recent bombscare. Have a look underneath your couch.--82.134.28.194 (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Two proposals

  1. Trim the Post-2003 section a bit, its length seems slightly undue
  2. Include the quote and the story when she resigned and went to the back benches: "I will be a good back-seat driver". Think it's in Marr, don't have the book to hand. It illuminates the rest of the story, perhaps. Other views? --John (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, especially with the first point, and binning the cat story was a good start! As for the second, is there any follow-up on that? Was she a "good" backseat driver (whatever that may mean)? That and the cat story raise a question: an encyclopedia article needs a bit of colour to liven it up, but what should we include? For example, in early copyediting, I removed the fact that Denis was at the Oval when the twins were born, which is colourful, but somewhat tangential. In contrast, I added the "I will fight on, I will fight to win" quote to the resignation section. We need to be careful to avoid implied criticism, or editorializing, but we don't want the article to be utterly dull! So how do we decide? Geometry guy 20:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course I cannot possibly comment on whether she was a good or a bad back-seat driver, but I think it links her Premiership with the time that came after. Here's a source for the quote; I will do some more digging and some more thinking. --John (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Dates in Early life and education

The dates of her election given here are clearly wrong - she would be sixteen when elected. Presumable it is meant to say 1951 (as the following section says), rather than 1941. Mrbowtie (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed, well spotted. Now changed. Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

I go to KGGS (her school) and thought I could give you a bit of additional info;

At the moment there is a display of her schoolbooks at KGGS, and reading them I saw a lot of one of her books was concentrated on WW1 (?)(I think it's that war) and how it started. There is a lot of opinionated paragraphes about the 'dirty Germans'. The school is currently run by Mr Burks. The main hall was opened by Margret Thatcher. Kggs is Partnered with Kings boys school, where Issac Newton went to school.

Hope this is useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.187.192 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 27 February 2011

It is interesting, but there are a couple of reasons why it may not be suitable for the article. First, information in a Wikipedia article needs to be verifiable which means that the reader can in principle find reliable secondary sources for its content. Are there books which discuss this information?
The second issue is that this is an article on the whole of Margeret Thatcher's life, and there is a limit to how much detail can be covered on any particular aspect. You might consider whether any of this material would be worth adding to the article on your school instead. Geometry guy 18:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Change to first section

"Following the 1979 general election she became Britain's first female Prime Minister."

change to first section as i being the first seems as significant as being the only time it has occurred

"Following the 1979 general election she became Britain's first and so far only female Prime Minister." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.248.70 (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Date elected Party Leader

You state that she became Party Leader on February 11th 1975. But the picture caption says 'Margaret Thatcher, elected as Leader of the Opposition on 18 September 1975'. What was this other election? Or was it simply the date of the photograph? 86.145.156.23 (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The caption was rather misleading, I agree. September was the date of the photograph. Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 212.128.183.134, 4 April 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I want to put Margaret Thatcher's family tree.

212.128.183.134 (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Additionally, you need reliable sources. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the IP is suggesting Thatcher's family tree be added to this article; something like this: Kirk Douglas#Family tree. Jim Michael (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Pretty nasty IMO, so I vote no. Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear oh dear, that looks awful. A million times no. --John (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Picture query

Why are all the pictures with Reagan or Bush? There isn't even a picture of Thatcher in Downing Street. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.248.159 (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably because there are no suitably licensed free to use pictures of here in Downing Street. The British government has rather restrictive copyright policies. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Echoing what Jezhotwells says 77.101.248.159, if you have a suitable copyright-free picture then please upload it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Pre-FAC read through...

Having seen discussion on Malleus' page, I offer these comments....

  • FAC - you need to resolve the page needed tags (one in Leader of the Opposition...)
  • Lead:
    • Need to explain the abbreviation MP that's used without explanation. Remember the Yanks won't know what the heck is meant... Same for UK.
    • Do we have a link for a specific article on the 1970 governement?
    • "Her political philosophy and economic policies emphasised deregulation, particularly of the financial sector, flexible labour markets, and the sale or closure of state-owned companies and withdrawal of subsidies to others." the "...policies emphasised deregulation, particularly of the financial sector, flexible labour markets..." part is a bit confusing ... shouldn't it be "...policies emphasised deregulation - particularly of the financial sector, flexible labour markets..." or some similar construction?
    • "Thatcher's popularity sank amid recession and high unemployment..." I'd be happier with a chronological anchor here ... when did her popularity sink, what year?
    • I've changed all the "She" to "Thatcher" per MOS, but it might be best to vary the first word of the second, third, and fourth sentences of the lead to avoid repetition.
    • Is "but her Community Charge was widely unpopular" detailing a policy initiative? New program? A bit more context here would prevent the loss of readers who click on the link to find out what the heck is meant and never return. A one or two word explanation is all that is needed.
  • Early life:
    • "Roberts moved to Colchester, Essex after graduating,..." is this a normal construction in Brit English? US would have "Roberts moved to Colchester, Essex after graduation..." to make the tenses the same.
      • I'm afraid it is normal here in the mother country. I changed the sentence a bit though, because the preceding paragraph also began with "Roberts". Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Early political career:
    • "promoted to the front bench" ... this means what? Remember, not just Brits reading this.
    • "After the loss of the 1964 election she became Conservative spokesman on Housing and Land, in which position she advocated the Conservative policy of allowing tenants to buy their council houses." Few too many Conservatives in here... perhaps "advocated her party's policy"?
    • "She moved to the Shadow Treasury team in 1966,..." Shadow Treasury team means what? Yank here, no clue what this means... (actually I do, but most won't)
    • "..and as Treasury spokesman opposed Labour's mandatory price..." this seems to imply that she actually was part of the Treasury, which I know ain't the case...
    • The second paragraph of Education Secretary is completely incomprehensible to the non-Brit. Needs some work to make it understandable.
    • "Thatcher now became the face of the ideological movement that opposed the welfare state Keynesian economics they believed was weakening Britain." I THINK you want "were weakening" here, but this may be US English usage. It definitely reads strange and the whole sentence is awkward, suggest reworking a bit.
      • "Economics" is singular in UK and US English alike. So are "physics", "ethics" and "civics". No objection to reworking the sentence though. --John (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    • "The critic Clive James, writing in The Observer in 1977, compared her voice of 1973 to a cat sliding down a blackboard..." awkward, suggest rewording
      • I think this is a tricky one, so I'll be interested to see what John thinks. The idea preceding that, that she undertook voice training, isn't covered by the citation. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    • "...using advertising hoardings with the slogan Labour Isn't Working..." Yank here, what's "advertising hoardings"?
      • They're what I think you Yanks call billboards; big flat wooden structures by the side of the road with posters on them. We could probably just say "advertising"? Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Prime Minister:
    • "As Prime Minister, Thatcher met weekly with Queen Elizabeth II to discuss government business, and their relationship came under close scrutiny." is this more or less than usual? For the non-Brits, this needs more context.
      • My recollection is that, at least at that time, it was conventional for a British PM to meet weekly with the monarch. What they discussed was confidential, but it was understood that the main purpose was for the PM to brief the monarch on current government business. The frequency of such meetings is therefore not a basis for speculation about the relationship between the two. There was indeed speculation, and that the relationship might be frosty, but it was general. When Thatcher resigned as PM in 1990, one newspaper (probably the Guardian) had a cartoon of the Queen, crowned and on a throne, knocking back a celebratory drink or three. --Wikiain (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The section on the queen fits poorly chronologically where it is, can it be fitted somewhere more in keeping with it's content?
    • Linkie for Funding Agency for Schools?
    • Easter Egg link for U-turn, and "Civil unrest in England" in the Economy section - strongly suggest "Riots in 1981 resulted in the British media discussing the need for a policy change." as the link to "flip-flop (politics)" is really not needed here.
    • Suggest combining some short paragraphs in the Economy section, too many short one and two sentence paragraphs here, which gives the prose a very choppy feeling.
    • Foreign affairs - same issue with short paragraphs that can be combined here
    • RAF - needs spelling out. Same for IRA. (In the US, IRA can also mean Individual Retirement Account, so this could be confusing to the Yanks)
    • The bit about the Westland thing ... I'm unclear what sort of offer was refused? Was it an offer to buy the company? Or was it a co-manufacturing deal?
      • It was a takeover bid, an offer to buy the company. Is "takeover" not a common term in the US? Malleus Fatuorum 19:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
    • "Later that year the US Congress approved an extradition treaty intended to stop IRA operatives evading extradition. The US Senate only ratified this treaty when Reagan explicitly mentioned British support for the bombing of Libya." does this have a connection to Thatcher? Otherwise, it's probably unneeded detail.
      • I think it is relevant, as Thatcher had allowed the US to station the F-1111s used in the attack in the UK. Malleus Fatuorum 19:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
    • USSR needs spelling out.
    • Foreign affairs jumps around chronologically, this is very confusing to go from 1888 and the thawing of relations with the Russians to the 1982 Falklands War...
      • It's thematic rather than chronological, as a chronological approach simply doesn't work IMO. But I've made a few adjustments to try and make the themes more apparent. Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
    • "255 British servicemen and three Falkland Islanders.." Shouldn't that be "3" to match the other?
    • "half of them after the nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror sank the cruiser ARA General Belgrano by torpedo on 2 May" is nuclear really necessary here? The sub didn't fire a nuke at the cruiser after all...
      • I like "nuclear", as it gives a sense of the differing technological levels; a WWII-era cruiser sunk by a piece of leading-edge technology, the only ship ever to have been sunk by a nuclear submarine. Malleus Fatuorum 17:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I think nuclear is necessary here as Malleus says she is the only nuclear-powered submarine ever to have engaged an enemy ship with torpedoes. It would probably be best to add in nuclear-powered as it would avoid confusion. Woody (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
          • And I think that's an excellent idea, done. Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    • "... decision to escalate the war by sinking the Belgrano (notably by Tam Dalyell in parliament), but overall was regarded as a highly talented and committed war leader." the parenthetical here seems tacked on. Perhaps "...and the decision to escalate the war by sinking the Belgrano was criticized particularly by Tam Dalyell in Parliament, but overall was regarded as a highly talented and committed war leader..." And if the guy is notable enough to mention here, he's notable enough to link, right?
    • "The government closed 25 unprofitable pits in 1985; by 1992, a total of 97 pits had been closed..." is there a need to use the Brit "pits" here, instead of the internationally understood "mines"?
      • I'll have consult with a coal mining expert on that. My understanding is that pit and mine are not synonymous, at least here in the UK; a pit is a shaft dug into the ground, but a mine (perhaps colliery might be a better word to use here?) could contain more than one pit. Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I've taken advice, and I've changed "pits" to "coal mines". Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Can we break up the double link here: "Marxian economist Andrew Glyn ..."?
    • Here with the marxian comment, there should probably be a balancing quote from a favourable economist, to adhere to NPOV.
    • Resignation - lots and lots of choppy one and two sentence paragraphs here that could usefully be combined
    • "... Ian Gow resigned as Minister of State in the HM Treasury,..." HM means what here? And is it usual practice to basically say "in the Her Majesty's Treasury"? I think the "the" there is awkward
    • "..and all fifteen Unionist MPs resigned their Westminster seats..." Westminster seats is what? Are you saying they resigned their Parliament seats? Suggest avoiding jargon that non-Brit's won't understand or explaining
      • Yes indeed; changed "Westminster seats" to "parliamentary seats. Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Resignation "backbench"... needs explanation for the non-Brits
    • "...over her refusal to agree to a timetable for Britain to join the single currency." Presumably this is the Euro meant here, but should be made clearer.
      • Yes indeed; changed to "European single currency". Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
    • "her Chancellor" needs explanation for the non-Brits.
  • Later years - again, this section has entirely too many short one and two sentence paragraphs, which makes the prose choppy and hard to follow.\
    • Did she ALWAYS make $50K for a speech, or did the value change over time? She's been out of office a long time, surely her price changed over time?
    • "Thatcher" or "Lady Thatcher"? Need to pick one and stick with it.
      • Should be consistently "Thatcher" now. Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Legacy: Again with the short choppy paragraphs.
    • "Hastings and Jenkins (1983) suggested..." Who are they and why is their opinion important? Context lacking here.
    • This section feels a bit too negative, and could do with a bit more expansion of people praising her policies and government. Overall the article is very balanced and NPOV, just this section has a bit of a feel of too much criticism.
    • Can we get time in office for Salisbury and Liverpool as well as her length of time in office for comparision and context?
      • Adde 'time in office for Salisbury and Liverpool'. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • File:Plaque, maison natale de Margaret Thatcher.JPG is this copyrighted in the UK? There's been some questions on US subjects whether or not the plaque is copyrighted.
    • Anything (at least anything 3-D involving some element of craftmanship) displayed in a public place in the UK is copyright-free, (freedom of panorama). Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • File:Troubled Images Exhibition, Belfast, August 2010 (14).JPG Likewise, I doubt that the poster is out of copyright, so this is not copyright free...
    • I think that one's marginal under the freedom of panorama rules, as arguably a product of "high class printing" to quote the Commons guidelines. On balance I think it's maybe OK. Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Sources:
    • Are you going to go with last name first or first name first with the footnotes? You have last name first with current ref 2 (Thatcher, Margaret) then first name first with current ref 6 (Marueen Johnson)...
      • Should all be consistently last name, first name now. Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
    • What makes http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/ a reliable source for the manifesto? Presumably this is a copyrighted text, does this site have permission to host it?
    • Current ref 25 (The Denis Thatcher obit) has an author, should be listed.
    • Same for current ref 48 (Thatcher leads tributes...)
    • And for current ref 54 (Margaret Thatcher complained...). Given the number of these, I strongly suggest double checking all the newspaper refs that lack authors for authors, as I quit checking here.
      • Done. I'll check all the others. Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Time Magazine or Time, not Time magazine. (Current ref 53)
    • Current ref 75 (Unemployment among young...) has a listed author
    • Current ref 106 (Oral history...) spell out PBS here
    • Current ref 110 (R. Whitney, Craig..) Surely this is Whitney, Craig R.???
    • Current ref 103 (Alan Jones (3 March 2009). "A History of the Miners' Strike".) something's missing here, like what the article was published in?
    • Current ref 122 (UK Coal sees...) ther'es a weird formatting character in the title ...
    • Current ref 139 ... what is CAIN? You have it linked, but it should be spelled out.
Definitely a good article, needs that polish to get it up to FA level. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
On some comments re sources:
  • 'Unemployment among young...' added author;
  • Unemployment among young workers hits 15 per cent;
  • 'PBS' = Public Broadcasting Service;
  • 'R. Whitney, Craig..' fields wrong in template;
  • 'Alan Jones (3 March 2009).' fields wrong in template;
  • 'UK Coal sees...' should have a "£", added;
  • CAIN seems to be its name, see CAIN;
Mr Stephen (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
And again:
  • fixed several authors in first last format;
  • (the manifesto—dunno);
  • added multiple authors to newspaper refs;
  • it's Time, not Time magazine.
Mr Stephen (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Margaret_Thatcher/Archive_19&oldid=647786653"