Content deleted Content added
Neveselbert (talk | contribs) →Section 28: Reply |
|||
Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Controversial}}
{{British English}}
{{Article history
|action1=FAC
|action1date=06:38, 9 Jun 2004
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Margaret Thatcher/archive1
|action1result=promoted
|action1oldid=4038365
|action2=FAR
|action2date=17:47, 24 July 2006
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Margaret Thatcher
|action2result=kept
|action2oldid=65578900
|action3=FAR
|action3date=16:02, 11 July 2007
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Margaret Thatcher/archive1
|action3result=removed
|action3oldid=143075473
|action4=GAN
|action4date=06:38, 29 November 2008
|action4link=Talk:Margaret Thatcher/GA1
|action4result=not listed
|action4oldid=254641370
|action5=GAN
|action5date=20:26, 23 December 2008
|action5link=Talk:Margaret Thatcher/GA2
|action5result=listed
|action5oldid=259381693
|action6=PR
|action6date=10:10, 12 January 2009
|action6link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Margaret Thatcher/archive1
|action6result=reviewed
|action6oldid=262120731
|action7=GAR
|action7date=17:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
|action7link=Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Margaret Thatcher/1
|action7result=delisted
|action7oldid=406899606
|action8=GAN
|action8date=15:46, 21 January 2011
|action8link=Talk:Margaret Thatcher/GA3
|action8result=listed
|action8oldid=409179661
|action9=GAR
|action9date=00:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
|action9link=Talk:Margaret Thatcher/GA4
|action9result=delisted
|action9oldid=478167894
|action10=GAR
|action10date=13:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
|action10link=Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Margaret Thatcher/2
|action10result=listed
|action10oldid=481764771
|action11=GAR
|action11date=15:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
|action11link=Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Margaret Thatcher/3
|action11result=kept
|action11oldid=559533991
|action12=WAR
|action12date=11:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
|action12link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Assessment/Margaret Thatcher
|action12result=approved
|action12oldid=847308132
|currentstatus=FFA/GA
|maindate=May 18, 2005
|itndate=8 April 2013
|itnlink=Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/April 2013#[Posted] Margaret Thatcher
|otddate=2004-05-04
|otdoldid=6718103
|otd2date=2004-10-12
|otd2oldid=6790115
|otd3date=2007-05-04
|otd3oldid=128166242
|otd4date=2008-05-04
|otd4oldid=209970927
|otd5date=2009-05-04
|otd5oldid=287899753
|otd6date=2011-05-04
|otd6oldid=427442686
|otd7date=2012-05-04
|otd7oldid=490652752
|otd8date=2016-05-04
|otd8oldid=718210004
|otd9date=2019-05-04
|otd9oldid=895346226
|topic=Politics and government
|otd10date=2023-05-04|otd10oldid=1153119456
|otd11date=2024-05-04|otd11oldid=1222034541
|otd12date=2025-05-04|otd12oldid=1277753214
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=A|listas=Thatcher, Margaret|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|blp=no|1=
{{WikiProject Biography |politician-work-group=yes |politician-priority=high |peerage-work-group=yes |peerage-priority=high |s&a-work-group=yes |s&a-priority=high}}
{{WikiProject Lincolnshire|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|British=yes|Cold-War=yes}}
{{WikiProject Cold War |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject London|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject University of Oxford|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Women scientists|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Women writers| importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject England|importance=High}}
}}
{{Press
|author= [[Naomi Alderman]]
|date= 7 April 2009
|url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/apr/07/wikipedia-encarta
|title= Encarta's failure is no tragedy
|org= [[The Guardian]]
|section=
|author2= Stephen Foley
|date2= 3 February 2009
|url2= http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/so-is-wikipedia-cracking-up-1543527.html
|title2= Is Wikipedia cracking up?
|org2= [[The Independent]]
|section2= February
|author3= Alex Hern
|date3= 9 April 2013
|url3= http://www.newstatesman.com/alex-hern/2013/04/how-wikipedia-covered-thatchers-death
|title3= How Wikipedia covered Thatcher's death
|org3= [[New Statesman]]
|section3=
|author4= Fatima Ahmed-Farouta
|date4= 2 May 2013
|url4= http://www.webcitation.org/6GMqFsmH9
|title4= Redressing Wikipedia's Historical Gender Gap
|org4= [[George Mason University]]
|section4= May
|collapsed=yes}}
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes|
{{Annual report|[[Wikipedia:2020 Top 50 Report|2020]]|10,401,057<!--51-->}}
{{Top 25 Report|April 7, 2013|April 14, 2013|November 15, 2020|November 22, 2020|November 29, 2020|December 6, 2020|December 13, 2020}}
{{Annual readership}}
{{Section sizes}}
{{Refideas
|{{cite book
| last=Moore |first=Charles
| year=2019
| title=Margaret Thatcher: Herself Alone |volume=3
| url={{Google books|HT71wQEACAAJ|plainurl=yes}}
| publisher=Penguin Books
| isbn=978-0-241-32474-5}}
}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100k
|counter = 29
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
==
Thatcher did not "allow" the operation. The Americans told her they would use the UK's bases to launch El Dorado Canyon without permission. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:C419:D301:8:F6D:B714:7605|2A00:23C5:C419:D301:8:F6D:B714:7605]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C5:C419:D301:8:F6D:B714:7605|talk]]) 17:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
:The [[WaPo]] source says this: "{{tq|A source said that it was decided at this meeting to make an attempt to obtain permission from British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to use the bombers. The British acceded to the U.S. request after expressing initial reservations, officials said.}}" [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 17:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
== Occupations of Baroness Margaret Thatcher ==
I just started editing on Wikipedia so I am still learning, but I was wondering whether it would be appropriate to put "Prime Minister of the UK" and "Imperial or Candian Privi Counceler" under occupations? Thanks in advance for helping me understand this. [[User:Heraldic Nerd|Heraldic Nerd]] ([[User talk:Heraldic Nerd|talk]]) 23:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
:{{re|Heraldic Nerd}} please see [[WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE]]. ‑‑[[User:Neveselbert|Neveselbert]] ([[User talk:Neveselbert|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Neveselbert|contribs]] <b>·</b> [[Special:EmailUser/Neveselbert|email]]) 20:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* [[commons:File:Shah and Margaret Thatcher.jpg|Shah and Margaret Thatcher.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2025-07-15T16:53:56.883847 | Shah and Margaret Thatcher.jpg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dabiri-e VAZIRI|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 16:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
== Stateswoman ==
{{u|Neveselbert}}, scholarly sources don’t describe her as a stateswoman, they only say this when talking about how she presents her public image. The definition of stateswoman [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/stateswoman] is {{tq|an experienced female politician, especially one who is respected for making good judgments}}, which is nowhere near neutral enough for [[WP:WIKIVOICE]] and just looks like [[WP:FANCRUFT]]. Pinging {{u|Borgenland}} who has experience with this [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 12:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
:Same reservations for that word on hagiographical and PR grounds and especially given her nuanced legacy (what to make of her “romance” with Pinochet and her gray record on South Africa for example). Nevertheless, I think a greater discussion must be had on the relevant projects (Biography and Politics). [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 12:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
::Yeah I’m surprised there isn’t a higher level consensus against these words. Would you like me to start a discussion at [[WP:WPBIO]] or do you want to? [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 13:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm a wanderer here on Wiki so I might forget, but do feel free to quote from my previous opinions. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 14:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
::I'm not sure those things matter much. Someone like [[Bismarck]] is the classic statesman, and he hardly has a morally blemish-free record. [[Julius Ceasar]] is called a statesman on his article and he killed a million Gauls on his own testimony. [[User:LastDodo|LastDodo]] ([[User talk:LastDodo|talk]]) 15:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
:::The difference is that Thatcher is a ''very'' polarising figure in the UK, [https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/5759-margaret-thatcher-and-public-opinion Yougov] says {{tq|For example, more than once we have asked people their opinion on who was the greatest of the post-war prime ministers. Margaret Thatcher wins by some distance. We have also asked who was the worst. Again, Margaret Thatcher comes out on top.}} Presenting her as widely respected is pretty disingenuous, she's despised in parts of the country (particularly the old industrial heartlands), and some [[Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher#Wider reaction|celebrated her death]]. [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 12:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
::::I know she is polarising, I'm just not sure that disqualifies her from being a stateswoman. What counts is what the word 'stateswoman' means, and whether she meets that criteria. Nothing else. She can hardly be more polarising than Caesar was in his own time, who started a civil war and made himself dictator before being assassinated. Note that I'm not necessarily arguing she should be considered a stateswoman, only that her moral blemishes and polarising nature are not relevant, at least they don't seem to disqualify others from being given that label. [[User:LastDodo|LastDodo]] ([[User talk:LastDodo|talk]]) 14:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
:I started a discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Statesman/stateswoman]] [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 21:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
:{{responding to ping}} My view remains unchanged: {{tq|stateswoman}} is a term supported by reliable sources, including Oxford Reference and her official death certificate. Its use is neither undue nor in violation of policy, and polarisation alone does not preclude its applicability. ‑‑[[User:Neveselbert|Neveselbert]] ([[User talk:Neveselbert|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Neveselbert|contribs]] <b>·</b> [[Special:EmailUser/Neveselbert|email]]) 04:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
::I agree with user Neveselber. As time passes, her polarising effect becomes less relevant anyway, even if it ever were relevant to her position as a stateswoman. [[User:Roger 8 Roger|Roger 8 Roger]] ([[User talk:Roger 8 Roger|talk]]) 07:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
::Her death certificate isn’t relevant to us here, it’s a primary source and obv far from [[WP:BESTSOURCES]]. I assume the Oxford Reference source you’re referring to is [https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803103533772?rskey=sjohYi&result=11 this] in the Dictionary of Contemporary World History. It is a good source, but one source alone doesn’t make it due or npov, and a later edition of it [https://www-oxfordreference-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/display/10.1093/acref/9780191890949.001.0001/acref-9780191890949-e-3478?rskey=Fnaa0y&result=13] doesn’t use it. Though there are more like [https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199546091.001.0001/acref-9780199546091-e-11496?rskey=0Q4Qu9&result=66] [https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199668700.001.0001/q-author-00010-00003184?rskey=0Q4Qu9&result=75] [https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199668700.001.0001/q-author-00010-00003184?rskey=0Q4Qu9&result=75] (all sources mentioned here are tertiary sources). However her entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [https://www-oxforddnb-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/display/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-106415?rskey=dXnyzf&result=11], arguably our best source, doesn’t call her that, neither do her entries in [https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780195117394.001.0001/acref-9780195117394-e-0746?rskey=f59YjH&result=2] [https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199738595.001.0001/acref-9780199738595-e-385?rskey=f59YjH&result=3] [https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199677832.001.0001/acref-9780199677832-e-4175?rskey=f59YjH&result=4] [https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191758027.001.0001/acref-9780191758027-e-3393?rskey=f59YjH&result=5] [https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191751080.001.0001/acref-9780191751080-e-704?rskey=f59YjH&result=12]. Her entry in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History [https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780195148909.001.0001/acref-9780195148909-e-1069?rskey=f59YjH&result=1] opens by saying {{tq|Thatcher remains a controversial figure.}}! (and unsurprisingly doesn’t use it). Feel free to share more sources, but 4/12 (3/11 if we discard an old edition) means it isn’t npov, and it’s given disproportionate weight relative to its use in sources to be used in the first sentence. [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 07:25, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
:::If there is agreement that RSSs are the measure to use, as there appears to be, a quick view of google scholar (margaret thatcher "stateswoman") brings up many sources, including this book [https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/A_Communication_Perspective_on_Margaret/pFM3DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=thatcher+stateswoman&pg=PP1&printsec=frontcover] entitled "A Communication Perspective on Margaret Thatcher: Stateswoman of the Twentieth Century". Should not the status of stateswoman, an interstate description, be seen more through the eyes of those outside the UK? That would remove most of the sources that deal with her polarising effect in the UK, and in her day. [[User:Roger 8 Roger|Roger 8 Roger]] ([[User talk:Roger 8 Roger|talk]]) 08:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
::::I think we’d by going off-piste a bit there regarding our policies, imo we ought to trust the best academic sources to transcend polarisation more associated with tabloids (and all of the above are recent). Regarding the book, I can’t find anything on the author but nowhere actually in the book is stateswoman used, just in the title, which imo we shouldn’t use per [[WP:HEADLINES]], it appears to have been a marketing choice. I also wouldn’t call it a best source on thatcher’s life as it’s about media comms and is secondary. From my search on google scholar, sources don’t call her it in their own voice (but none of the above sources came up at all). I wanted to look through entries in Springer’s collection of encyclopedias but their inbuilt search engine is rubbish [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 08:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{u|DeFacto}}, I’m sure you’re aware of [[WP:DRNC]]. I assumed the lack of response to my source analysis was admissive, I don’t see how given the above anyone could argue stateswoman is npov/due [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 11:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::[[WP:Consensus]] (a Wikipedia policy, not another essay) is clear: "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision-making". Without one the change cannot be justified and will not stick. -- [[User:DeFacto|<span style="color:#3366CC;">DeFacto</span>]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 11:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|DeFacto}}, the only objection is from Neveselbert (echoed by Roger, others are more agnostic), who didn’t follow BRD and respond to my ping at the talk page after having reverted, only commenting after I had waited a few days and made the change which they reverted again. In that comment they vaguely allude to sources at Oxford Reference, I reviewed all the tertiary sources at Oxford Reference and they actually support the change. [[WP:DETCON]] relies upon quality of arguments, I agree there isn’t strong consensus here but it’s often the case people stop commenting after they feel they have no substantive counter-arguments to make. Maybe I’ve assessed this wrong, but {{u|Neveselbert}} I’m happy to discuss further if you have any thoughts on the above. [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 11:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
==Section
How is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&diff=prev&oldid=1306773236 this] "undue"? [[Section 28]] has a whole Wikipedia article dedicated to it that passed notability checks and there is plenty of reliable third-party sources covering it, of which I can easily add more to this. It was a significant policy of Thatcher's that's received plenty of reliable source coverage and is absolutely notable. To omit it from this page is beyond ridiculous. [[User:Helper201|Helper201]] ([[User talk:Helper201|talk]]) 16:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:Weight is judged from its prominence in the body of secondary sources about the life of the subject of the article. That had an OR introduction from primary sources. Start a section here to discuss how much coverage it deserves and where to put it. -- [[User:DeFacto|<span style="color:#3366CC;">DeFacto</span>]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 16:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::And to totally wipe out such well cited and key legislation made no sense, nor was it conducive to cooperative Wikipedia editing. It was clearly not a reasonable act to totally wipe out all the information based on what you determined to be a primary source of one line of information, of which you also removed plenty of other legitimate content and just because of your disagreement the placement of the added information. You could have taken multiple other paths rather than just deleting it all. I have added plenty more sources including secondary sources now. If you can provide good reason why it should not be placed under "Domestic affairs" then by all means voice them here but this is certainly the most relevant place for such information. We don't need to open another new talk page section for that. [[User:Helper201|Helper201]] ([[User talk:Helper201|talk]]) 17:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::{{U|Neveselbert}} please explain why you think [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&diff=prev&oldid=1306789902 this] is ''"Completely undue"''. [[User:Helper201|Helper201]] ([[User talk:Helper201|talk]]) 18:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Hi again Helper201. I chanced on this discussion after mentioning you on the [[Adolf Hitler]] talk page. Specifically, I questioned your addition of five sources that supposedly confirm the NAZI party was far right. Without repeating that discussion, the point was your five sources were completely inadequate and not usable. You seem not to grasp how to use sources properly, including the difference between primary and secondary sources and use of proper weighting of detail. Adding five sources to a sentence as you have done here does not make it five times better referenced, it just adds unnecessary clutter. One or two good RSSs is enough. [[User:Roger 8 Roger|Roger 8 Roger]] ([[User talk:Roger 8 Roger|talk]]) 01:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Roger 8 Roger, I'm not sure why you're bringing up [[Talk:Adolf Hitler#Far-right politican category|a dicussion]] to critique me in which your revert was roundly objected by the others editors involved. [[User:Helper201|Helper201]] ([[User talk:Helper201|talk]]) 15:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Section 28 was not a personal initiative of Thatcher's, but a backbench amendment she allowed through as Prime Minister. She never voted on it and made only brief, generic public comments of government support. Major biographies, like Moore's, treat it as tangential to her career. Per [[WP:DUE]], it does not warrant inclusion in her main biographical article. ‑‑[[User:Neveselbert|Neveselbert]] ([[User talk:Neveselbert|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Neveselbert|contribs]] <b>·</b> [[Special:EmailUser/Neveselbert|email]]) 04:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
| |||