Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

"Mrs Denis Thatcher" paragraph

I am strongly of the position that this superfluous paragraph should and must be deleted. It has already been moved to the Denis Thatcher article, in the Marriages section, and I see no necessary need to include the exact (until 06:52, 15 July 2016 at least) same chunk of information on this article as well. The exact date for when it was first added was 04:05, 4 July 2016, and this was before the redirect Mrs Denis Thatcher was retargeted to Denis Thatcher#Marriages but to Margaret Thatcher#Early political career. This article has coped without such a paragraph for over a decade, and I see absolutely no reason whatsoever as to why we should just happen to include it now. I duly anticipate its removal.--Neve–selbert 20:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Would have appreciated a ping as I'm the one who added this. I and Oiyarbepsy both reverted the Neve–selbert's initial removals since the discussion at RfD did not come to a clear consensus on where the material should be. Neve–selbert incorrectly claimed that the RfD was consensus to remove the paragraph [1], and then tried again to remove the material again with the misleading edit summaries that imply that only the hatnote was being removed [2], [3], so bringing it to the talk page is welcome. For the record, the removed sentence is reproduced below:

Sentence
The marriage led to her being referred to as "Mrs Denis Thatcher" – now considered dated – by such official sources as selection minutes, travel itineraries, and society publications such as Queen, even after her election as a Member of Parliament, after which she preferred "Mrs Margaret Thatcher". References

I think this sentence is fine as the material is relevant to Margaret Thatcher and all reliable sources discuss the term in the context of how it was applied to PM Thatcher (see the links above and provided in the RfD). Inclusion here or on the Denis Thatcher page does not mean the material cannot be elsewhere. It is only one sentence and can easily be incorporated into a body paragraph if putting it on its own is not desirable (e.g. move the sentence mentioning Denis Thatcher from the previous section down, and combine all the marriage related stuff into one paragraph to make a two paragraph section). Wikipedia's a work in progress and if the addition of valid, cited material could be removed simply because it hasn't been in the article before, the site would be terrible. In any case, the result of that RfD is under dispute, and may be sent to DRV soon, so we might have to wait on that anyway. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Since there is now a DRV over the redirect and the material is not BLP, copyvio, or otherwise obviously unsuitable for Wikipedia, I have unhidden the section, at least for the duration of the DRV.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The paragraph must be hidden for the duration of the DRV. It would be simply nonsensical and wholly tendentious otherwise. If the argument eventually sways in favour of yours? I will accept the paragraph and thus gracefully accept the verdict. But the discussion of which has not yet even begun, anyway. Please, I urge you to wait until we can come to some sort of agreement on this before fully including the paragraph. The paragraph remains in the source, so this is already the best possible compromise as yet.--Neve–selbert 00:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Articles are frequently undeleted at DRV for the duration of discussion there so !voters can properly assess the relevant XfD at the time of closure. Since this content is central to the RfD it makes sense to unhide it for the DRV discussion so that commentators do not have to click through to the source to see it. If anything is tendentious it's your insistence on making life harder for DRV commentators. if there is no consensus to relist and this discussion is still ongoing, I will hide it again until this discussion ends as well. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I don't care if the passage is there or not. I just didn't want to see it deleted without discussion, and the RfD did not agree to delete it. So there you go. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• The sentence must be included. For a famous person, all their marriages, however short-lived are significant content. However, the explanation of the mrs. is inappropriate editorializing. We should just state the facts. . We very probably would omit marriage(s), from a BLP of a private individual if the subject requested it. She is a opposite from a private individual as it is possible to be. Omitting it amounts to CENSORSHIP. DGG ( talk ) 14:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  Excluding the Mrs Denis Thatcher passage is not tantamount to WP:CENSORSHIP in any way, that is an absurd insinuation. Mrs Bill Clinton obviously refers to Hillary Clinton, yet there is no paragraph referring to her as such on her article or the Bill Clinton article, is there? In my humble opinion, the paragraph renders as ultimately as mere WP:TRIVIA. Her marriage has already been fully included in the article for over a decade, this new paragraph is mostly superflous and only tells us really what we should already know, given her generation that is. But, despite that being said, I would however accept the paragraph if we removed the almost duplicated paragraph from Denis Thatcher#Marriages, merging it solely into this article with a corresponding hatnote above.--Neve–selbert 23:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Except it is mentioned in the Hillary_Clinton#Later Arkansas years section, in the context of public pressure leading her to adopt the moniker to bolster the electoral success of her husband. Here it's in the context of it being used for Margaret Thatcher despite her explicit wishes because that's just how British society "did things" back then. How people refer to themselves versus societal expectations of how people should refer to themselves can be encyclopedic material if reliable sources treat it as such, and the links at the RfD clearly show that this is the case for Margaret Thatcher.

There's no reason why similar material can't be on two people's pages at the same time. In any case, my preference is to have the redirect link here, have the context here, and avoid a hatnote entirely, because if anything's trivial it's that Denis Thatcher had a non-notable wife before Margaret Thatcher. A pipelink to the marriages section should suffice (e.g. "she met Denis Thatcher, a successful, wealthy, and divorced businessman"). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you may mean Hillary Clinton#Later Arkansas years, and yes, Mrs. Bill Clinton is mentioned, but only very briefly and merely a passing reference let alone a paragraph. I honestly believe a compromise is desperately needed here. Including the passage both on this article and the Denis Thatcher article is in my view a messy concoction that when push comes to shove ends up undermining WP:WEIGHT. There is zero mention of "Mrs Bill Clinton" on the Bill Clinton and hence I believe that we can come to an agreement to at least omit the detail from the husband article and offer it solely on this article. I would indeed be inclined to accept a pipelink to #Marriages over a hatnote, as a concession provided that we remove/transfer the detail from the Denis Thatcher article.--Neve–selbert 06:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah my bad with the link. If we remove the part about taking a leave from her post to campaign for Bill Clinton, the two sentences about what name she used during the campaign and what name she used as soon as the campaign was successful is 248 characters (not including the super long Note 1 which deals with the entire history of how she referred to herself). The sentence here is only 299 characters and we can easily move all the marriage and family stuff into its own paragraph and rename the section "Early political career and marriage" if having it stand alone is so much of an issue.

Comparing Bill Clinton and Denis Thatcher isn't useful because Bill Clinton notability is not derived in large part from whom he married. Better comparisons would be examples like Joachim Sauer, Philip May, Tim Mathieson, or Peter Davis (sociologist). The first three of these have more details about their relationship with their wife/partner than is found on the article of their political leader wife, which all duplicate or summarize the relationship. The last pair has more information on Helen Clark's page because that information (political machinations to get her married, her crying/health at the wedding), is more relevant to Clark than Davis. There's no reason why this can't be on both pages at once, and I've already cut down the sentence on the Denis Thatcher page to an appropriate level of detail. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm sorry I did not see this discussion previously. I do not think this sort of material belongs here. Perhaps there is a sub-article it could go onto. --John (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  @John: It is already included on Denis Thatcher, but Patar knight made clear his preference for its inclusion on both pages back in July.--Nevé–selbert 22:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, I am sorry I did not see that discussion. A ping back then would have been nice. Never mind. Maybe there's a compromise. --John (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The inclusion of the paragraph was the result of two RfDs and a DRV (starting here) and removal would require another RFD (since redirects should generally point to the primary topic and relevant content). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Uh-huh. We are not a bureaucracy. In terms of the needs of our readers and of Wikipedia policy, what is the necessity of including this material? --John (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I won't go as far as DGG as saying that its exclusion would be censorship. However, the consensus of the discussions linked above was that the term is a legitimate (if dated) alternate name used and referenced in a variety of sources, including academic biographies, and which is the foremost example of the ridiculousness of traditional naming conventions since she was called this even while she was one of the most powerful Tory women politicians and when she didn't want to use that name. Readers are best served when valid alternative names are explained. The material is only a sentence, and if people feel even that is too long, some of the commentary can easily be cut down, so it just mentions how she was referred to by some as "Mrs Denis Thatcher" despite preferring "Margaret Thatcher". Hardly undue coverage.

In any case, these edits made by Neve-selbert constitute an inapproiate attempt to game the system. Where that redirect should go was the subject of 2 RfDs and 1 DRV, and you shouldn't unilaterally change it to your prefered target when there is clearly controversy about where that goes instead of opening another RfD. The second diff even cites the close of the analogous case of Mrs. Bill Clinton as retargeting to Hillary Clinton without changing to redirect to match with the result of that RfD. I've reverted those changes, but retargeted to the top of the article for now per the Clinton RfD.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I sincerely apologise, Patar knight. I only retargeted the redirect since the information pertaining to "Mrs Denis Thatcher" was wholly moved to Denis Thatcher. I made a mistake, in that regard.--Nevé–selbert 09:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Bloat

I know it is tempting to add anything and everything Thatcher-related to this article, but we must not. We got this through GA by trimming it down to the essentials. Not everything needs to be here; not every memorial, every speech or every anything. If it would belong in a good-quality book or internet article about her in 20 or 50 years, consider adding it. If not, don't. There may be a daughter article to put inessential things into. --John (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

A daughter article for all her awards, place names, statues and busts, etc. is a good idea. But are there a lot of these, in order to qualify for a separate article, instead as a section in her own article? --Artoxx (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

List of memorials to Margaret Thatcher might be worth starting for those that are verifiable but not noteworthy enough for the main article. --John (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Good idea; that would fit rather well into Category:Lists of things named after politicians. — JFG ^talk 11:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Foreign policy of Margaret Thatcher for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Foreign policy of Margaret Thatcher is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign policy of Margaret Thatcher until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Nevé–selbert 10:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

In an article on Thatcher I think we should minimize what is said about other people. Its only the three words that we need to follow. Rjensen (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Paragraph on legacy at lead

Hello all. Currently pondering over whether a reflective paragraph on Thatcher's legacy should be added to the lede. Given that we have Ronald Reagan's lede giving credit to his favorable rankings "in public and critical opinion of U.S. Presidents", and other British prime minister articles such as Benjamin Disraeli and William Ewart Gladstone (as well as David Lloyd George, Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill) also noting however briefly as to how they are viewed through historical analysis and public opinion, I think it seems a little odd that Thatcher lacks a similar paragraph. Of course, with Thatcher remaining a controversial figure in Britain (even in death), this pretty much immortalises her as perhaps the most polarising Briton to have ever lived. A reflective, objective extra paragraph might be insightful for readers whatever their political persuasion. All that being said though, the last thing I want is for this proposal to provoke anything or anyone. Any thoughts, John? Good or bad idea?--Nevé–selbert 20:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. Draft it here? --John (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't a clue how to start it, otherwise I probably would have added it anyway. If I may, do you have any suggestions or advice?--Nevé–selbert 21:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Not right at the moment, but I will have. User:Eric Corbett, what do you think? --John (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree good idea, but 'reflective, objective' might be hard to achieve consensus on, though worth trying. Legacy: political UK, political world, economic UK, economic world might be aspects that should be covered. Gravuritas (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@John and Gravuritas: Here's a draft of what I've come up with so far:

Thatcher "legacy" paragraphs
Note: I have tried to be as objective as possible.--Nevé–selbert
Thatcher remains a bitterly contested figure in Britain. To her supporters, she rescued Britain from its post-war decline, revitalised the economy through necessary reform, tamed the trade unions and helped end communism and the Cold War. To her detractors, her hard approach towards areas in industrial decline as a result of her reforms was schismatic and divisive, with the consequences of her economic policies causing widespread job losses in industrial regions [and her economic outlook has been condemned as lopsided in prioritising the City of London and Southern England over industrial regions further north in Britain] (referred to as the "North–South divide"); as a consequence, Thatcher is considered a hate figure among many outside the South. With such exceptional diversity in public opinion, Thatcher continues to provoke the raw, passionate and often colourful responses across Britain that characterised her premiership to this day. The governments that followed Thatcher, rather than rejecting the core tenets of her ideology as to preclude her transformational legacy of political reform, have built upon her achievements. Her legacy has continued to survive not only through governments in her home country, but also through governments around the world. Among most commentators, Thatcher is regarded as one of the preeminent and most consequential figures in British history, with both sides of the political divide acknowledging the gravity of her impact upon post-war Britain. Even in death, the effects of her impact remain a subject of heated public debate; with regard to the socio-economic issues facing present-day Britain, she has been lauded and critiqued in roughly equal measure.

--Nevé–selbert 20:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Do you mind if I edit your draft directly? Or would you prefer me to post an amended proposal? It is mostly fine but I wouldn't want "oftentimes", for example. --John (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

  Not at all, go ahead John.--Nevé–selbert 21:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks! I took a hack at the prose. I'd like to get some other input but something like this would be fine. --John (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

  I made some extra tweaks and adjustments to the text; please feel free to review.--Nevé–selbert 21:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

  Good work. Suggested change in double quotes, suggested deletion in square brackets. If those are acceptable, possibly 'as a consequence' should begin a new sentence and be changed to 'As a result'. It should be remembered that a large part of the industrial carnage in the private sector was due to extremely high foreign exchange rates, caused to a large extent by monetarist policies but not directly Targetted. Gravuritas (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Having had a search through the edit history of this article, I think a lot of what I wrote in the above paragraph was largely based from memory on these two paragraphs (that have since been removed, but I've retrieved them from this 2012 revision):

“ To her supporters, Margaret Thatcher remains a figure who revitalised Britain's economy, curbed the trade unions, and re-established the nation as a world power. She oversaw an increase from 7% to 25% of adults owning shares, and more than a million families bought their council houses, giving an increase from 55% to 67% in owner-occupiers. Total personal wealth rose by 80%. Victory in the Falklands conflict and her strong alliance with the United States are also remembered as some of her greatest achievements.

Thatcher's premiership was also marked by high unemployment and social unrest, and many critics fault her economic policies for the unemployment level; many of the areas affected by high unemployment as a result of her monetarist economic policies have still not fully recovered and are also blighted by social problems including drug abuse and family breakdown.

”

On second thought, maybe a paragraph on her legacy in the lede is really just too much hassle and could stir some controversy (i.e. her supporters saying we're being too negative and severe and her detractors arguing we're being too positive and lenient towards her and her legacy). If we are going to press ahead in adding a paragraph, we should aim to make it brief and straight to the point. Something like so:

“ In Britain, Thatcher remains controversial. To her supporters, she was a figure who revitalised Britain's economy, curbed the trade unions, and re-established the nation as a world power. Her detractors counter that her premiership was also marked by high unemployment and social unrest, and many fault her economic policies for the unemployment level; many of the areas affected by high unemployment as a result of her monetarist economic policies have still not fully recovered and are also blighted by social problems. ”

Considering that the subject of this article has only been deceased for three years, whereas the other figures I mentioned (i.e. President Reagan, Disraeli, etc.) have all been dead for over a decade, maybe we should wait a while, and then come back to this.--Nevé–selbert 20:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

References

A problem with the most recent (single-para) suggestion is that, two and a half decades after she left power, if 'many of the areas.....have still not fully recovered' then as time passes it's increasingly clear that monetarist economic policies were not the sole cause of the problems. I thought your original as amended was v good, but sympathise if you are finding this hard work

Gravuritas (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Second attempt

@John and Gravuritas: I've tried another attempt, this time it's more rather concise and straightforward:

A polarising figure, Thatcher continues to evoke passionate and raw reactions across the United Kingdom. Sentiment in London and the South of England remains the most positive, but opinion drastically contrasts northward among the post-industrial North (a disparity dubbed the "North–South divide"); outside England, personalised hostility against her is common. Lauded and denounced in almost equal measure, the tenets of her ideology have neither been systematically reversed nor rejected by any British government since. Widely regarded among the most consequential and potent of any leader in British history, Thatcher's impact as Prime Minister has been ranked in significance alongside such previous leaders as Queen Elizabeth I, Cromwell and Churchill.

--Nevé–selbert 21:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Tenets. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. In a rush, I wrote this down in my notes.--Nevé–selbert 22:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

What are the sources? Ideally the lead contains a summary of material already in the body. --John (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the balance is fine. I would suggest changing 'tenets of her ideology' to something like 'changes made during her premiership'. I think the stuff you are referring to includes changes to industrial policy; TU legislation; privatization; elimination of some taxes, etc. These resulted from her ideology but were not tenets of it.

Gravuritas (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleting outdated comments

John has restored a piece I deleted. " many of the areas affected by high unemployment as well as her monetarist economic policies remain blighted by social problems such as drug abuse and family breakdown.". It's 2016, and a 2004 source can't be used to support a statement that something 'remains' from the 1980s. Further, even if a source can be found to show whatever the relevant economic pattern is still remaining in 2016, causation would be very hard to ascribe to Government actions around three decades ago. The piece cannot stand. Gravuritas (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

References

The 'Iron Lady' section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello John. I reverted your integration of the #"Iron Lady" nickname section, as I thought this would be a mistake for the following reasons:

1. The Afd outcome was to have a section on the contents about the nickname's history, and I believe that such merged info would be easily accessible and less clunky in a section, rather than being squashed into the #Leader of the Opposition: 1975–79 section.
2. The section is already linked in the lede in the first paragraph. I personally would not recommend an {{anchor}} to replace such a section.
3. The merged paragraph was far too concentrated with references and detail simply unnecessary to include in a section pertaining to her tenure as Opposition Leader. As her being "the Iron Lady" was, in and of itself, very much a cultural phenomenon, it's far better as I see it to include such sources of info underneath the #Cultural depictions section, while hiding the subsection using the already included {{TOClimit}} in the Table of Contents.

I understand the merit of integrating new info, but I feel that (in these circumstances) we should keep superfluous detail excluded before at Iron Lady (when it was an article) tucked away neatly below near the bottom of the page. Of course, I am entirely welcome to further discussion about this.--Nevé–selbert 22:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Firstly the discussion at another place has no bearing upon what this article should contain, and it did not recommend any particular material be added here; nor could it. The result was redirect to Margaret Thatcher. If the material cannot be integrated into the body of the article, an alternative would be to remove it entirely. There may be room at another article for it in its current form, but not at this one. --John (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

  I understand that. But the consensus among users such as myself and JFG is to include the info in a subsection, that is already hidden from the Table of Contents. I am all for seeking a larger consensus (WP:RFD even). I just cannot see any harm in including the information below.--Nevé–selbert 23:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

  See the section #Bloat just above. If we allow anything and everything Thatcher-related to be shovelled in here, we lose the quality of the article. We do not need a separate section on this nickname which is already discussed in the article, and a strong consensus would require to be demonstrated in order for it to be included. --John (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

  There is no harm done. Besides, we don't want to bloat the #Leader of the Opposition: 1975–79 section, either. Having a section only containing two (rather short) paragraphs hidden from the TOC seems pretty non-problematic, in my opinion. It hardly bloats the article; it merely organises it. However, I will meet you halfway and consider where else we can move the information if it really is that big a deal.--Nevé–selbert 23:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

  John, I would note that there is (so far) a larger consensus to keep the section rather than remove it. I cannot fathom as to how this article would be bloated with the section re-included. It's hidden from the TOC and contains only around 160 words minus the references. We could add it to Cultural depictions of Margaret Thatcher, but I don't see the need. I'm just thinking of the precedent there is at the Duke of Wellington article; the article includes a #The Iron Duke section.--Nevé–selbert 00:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

  If we return the section, I think it should be named simply as "The Iron Lady" (rather than #"Iron Lady" nickname). To be honest, it's not really a section. It is only technically a section due to the lede linking to it (which I personally believe is quite useful for readers wanting to find out more about its terminology).--Nevé–selbert 00:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

  I agree with Neve-selbert re return section and call it "The Iron Lady". Rjensen (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• What about chucking it all in a footnote? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

  That, may be a good idea...--Nevé–selbert 00:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

  Upon further reflection, the paragraphs are likely to render as too large to fit inside a footnote. @Hillbillyholiday: "Iron_Lady"_section Here's how much info there had been.--Nevé–selbert 00:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep – Following AfD consensus, I performed the merge from the now-redirected Iron Lady page to the Margaret Thatcher article. I trimmed a lot of contents so that the new section would not bloat the article while being as informative as possible. In the context of a GA review, I don't think it is helpful to cut it further or remove it entirely. Cultural impact of this nickname beyond Thatcher also deserves a brief mention, which I have limited to one sentence. I support the proposed section rename. — JFG ^talk 05:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I know, and that was unfortunate and not justified by the AfD close. There was one particularly bone-headed phrase in there which brought the article into disrepute. I accept that this was well-intentioned but it was not an improvement. --John (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@John: Which sentence do you call bone-headed? Happy to amend… — JFG ^talk 10:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Question What is the merit to our readers on this top-level article about an important politician of reading this long section on a nickname, which largely duplicates existing material in the article? --John (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

First, the origins and embrace of the nickname are better documented in a separate section than as an aside to specific political events. Second, this phrase is undeniably part of Margaret Thatcher's legacy, to the point of becoming a generic name for any strong-willed female politician. I do agree with keeping such a section short while keeping the informative non-trivia contents. — JFG ^talk 10:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

And third, to answer your exact question, we have to think of readers who land here by searching for "Iron Lady", perhaps after reading that in a magazine and not knowing where this phrase comes from. A dedicated section is the best target. — JFG ^talk 11:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I would take issue with "this phrase is ... part of Margaret Thatcher's legacy, to the point of becoming a generic name for any strong-willed female politician" (my emphasis). Can you provide a source for this? Relative to privatising the utilities, destroying the trade unions, winning the Falklands War and revolutionising society and the economy, what percentage of her notability relates to her nickname? I think the peer-reviewed version of this article had the right emphasis by mentioning it twice, once in more detail. By adding a duplicative section just on the nickname, we double the coverage. I think that is too much. I attempted to integrate the section into the mentions but was reverted. Should we take out the existing two mentions and integrate them into the section? We certainly cannot have three bits about the nickname. That is into unencyclopedic territory. --John (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Idea: Given the disapproval of John for three paragraphs about the nickname, how about this for a proposal? We take out the paragraph about Thatcher being "the Iron Lady" from the #Leader of the Opposition: 1975–79 section and move it to a restored #The Iron Lady subsection. A hatnote can be implemented just below the section header at #Leader of the Opposition: 1975–79, like so:

See also: § The Iron Lady

This could work. There would only be a single mention of her nickname in the lede while the other is tucked away (within the #Cultural depictions section) and hidden from the Table of Contents. I wouldn't hesitate to remove portions of the #The Iron Lady paragraphs that may be TMI, but removing all of it altogether seems a bit much, in my opinion.--Nevé–selbert 22:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much the compromise I am proposing just above, iff we decide that a standalone section is due weight. Is it? I'm not fully convinced. Also, let me be clear that I am not in favour of allowing any old crap into the article and having it "tucked away" or "hidden from the ToC". You have no idea how hard it was to get the article to this level of concision and neutrality, and I am not going to back down easily about what I still regard as undue weight given to this factoid, especially if there is even a hint that it is our duty to preserve this material here on this peer-reviewed parent article. It is not. --John (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• I liked it pretty well as it was, in the section describing her time before becoming PM. I don't see why it needs an extended standalone section, especially if it detracts from the narrative. It may be a common knowledge to those of a certain age and to students of 1970s politics that it was coined before her election, but it is not well known to everyone. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

  I would argue that including detail about the nickname, in a section meant to cover her tenure as Opposition Leader as a whole, is itself distracting from that narrative. However, I would agree to trimming the text if the section is indeed returned. I just think that because the whole "Iron Lady" nickname is itself a cultural depiction of her, it belongs in the #Cultural depictions section. As John wisely notes, the section as it was was indeed inadequate and is in need of copy-editing. I'll try and draft a copy-edit later.--Nevé–selbert 23:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Below, the text where this dispute is concerned. It has been proposed that these two portions be merged together.--Nevé–selbert 22:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed section return
Section was last removed on 23:29, 23 October 2016.
"Iron Lady" nickname Margaret Thatcher was first called "the Iron Lady" by Captain Yuri Gavrilov on 24 January 1976 in the Soviet military newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star), responding to Thatcher's "Britain Awake" speech where she had expressed her staunch opposition to the Soviet Union and to socialism. Gavrilov supplied the headline "The 'Iron Lady' Sounds the Alarm", alluding to Otto von Bismarck, known as the "Iron Chancellor" of imperial Germany. Gavrilov's article was noticed by The Sunday Times the next weekend and subsequently given wide publicity. Thatcher embraced the name herself a week later in a speech to Finchley Conservatives, and compared it to the Duke of Wellington's nickname "the Iron Duke". This nickname stuck firmly to Thatcher for the rest of her life. "Iron Lady" has since become a generic term to describe female political leaders regarded as "strong-willed women", sometimes even outside politics. References

"Iron Lady" mention at #Leader of the Opposition: 1975–79

On 19 January 1976 Thatcher made a speech in Kensington Town Hall in which she made a scathing attack on the Soviet Union: The Russians are bent on world dominance, and they are rapidly acquiring the means to become the most powerful imperial nation the world has seen. The men in the Soviet Politburo don't have to worry about the ebb and flow of public opinion. They put guns before butter, while we put just about everything before guns. In response, the Soviet Defence Ministry newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star) called her the "Iron Lady", a sobriquet she gladly adopted. References

Proposed merge

The Iron Lady See also: Iron Lady (disambiguation) Margaret Thatcher came to be universally known by her nickname The Iron Lady, which originated from a Soviet newspaper criticizing her staunch posture against socialism. On 19 January 1976 Thatcher delivered the "Britain Awake" speech on defence and foreign policy, in which she made a scathing attack on the Soviet Union: The Russians are bent on world dominance, and they are rapidly acquiring the means to become the most powerful imperial nation the world has seen. The men in the Soviet Politburo don't have to worry about the ebb and flow of public opinion. They put guns before butter, while we put just about everything before guns. A rebuttal of this stance was published on 24 January in the official Soviet Defence Ministry newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star), titled "Iron Lady Raises Fears" by Captain Yuri Gavrilov, alluding to Iron Chancellor Bismarck of imperial Germany. The Sunday Times noticed the Red Star article, giving exposure to the Iron Lady moniker in Britain. Thatcher embraced the name herself a week later in a speech to Finchley Conservatives, and compared it to the Duke of Wellington's nickname the Iron Duke. This name was widely adopted as it reflected her uncompromising politics and leadership style, which could be equally viewed as positive or negative. "Iron Lady" has since become a generic term to describe female political leaders regarded as strong-willed, sometimes even outside politics. References

I added a proposed merged version, including some stylistic cleanup for clarity and brevity. Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 00:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@John and JFG: I've just attempted a copy-edit of the section below: (Reduced excessive references, merged the Iron Lady quote from the #Leader of the Opposition: 1975–79 section.)--Nevé–selbert 00:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: Oops, I was in the middle of the same exercise when you posted yours. What do you think of my version above? — JFG ^talk 00:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@JFG: I like it. Would it be alright if made a few adjustments, merging my revised version with your one?--Nevé–selbert 00:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. I would advise you start by copying mine, as I made a few subtle changes to the citation templates. — JFG ^talk 01:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done. I condensed some of the references--Nevé–selbert 01:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. To help other editors follow our back-and-forth, I have restored my proposed merge above and added a proposed consensus merge below, incorporating your latest edits + minor tweaks, including discreetly linking to the dab page within the text where we introduce "Iron Lady" as a generic term. I like your Forbes citation. Happy to drop the reference to an Olympic swimmer too, that does stray too far from the topic at hand. I'm not so happy with the longer citation from her Britain Awake speech but I'd rather let more experienced Thatcherians chime in. — JFG ^talk 02:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge alternative

The Iron Lady In 1976, Thatcher made a speech in Kensington Town Hall in which she made a scathing attack on the Soviet Union: A huge, largely land-locked country like Russia does not need to build the most powerful navy in the world just to guard its own frontiers. No. The Russians are bent on world dominance, and they are rapidly acquiring the means to become the most powerful imperial nation the world has seen. The men in the Soviet Politburo don't have to worry about the ebb and flow of public opinion. They put guns before butter, while we put just about everything before guns. In response to this, Thatcher was nicknamed the "Iron Lady" by a captain named Yuri Gavrilov in the Soviet military newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star). Gavrilov supplied the headline "The 'Iron Lady' Sounds the Alarm", alluding to Otto von Bismarck, known as the "Iron Chancellor" of imperial Germany. Gavrilov's article was noticed by The Sunday Times the next weekend and subsequently given noticeable publicity. Thatcher herself embraced the name, comparing it to the Duke of Wellington's nickname of the "Iron Duke" a week later in a speech to Finchley Conservatives. This nickname stuck firmly to Thatcher for the rest of her life. "Iron Lady" has since become a generic term to describe female political leaders regarded as "strong-willed women", sometimes even outside the realm of politics. References

Proposed consensus version…
…as amended by Neve-selbert and JFG, taking John's input into account. Further comments and suggestions welcome below.
The Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher came to be identified with the nickname of "Iron Lady", which originated from a Soviet newspaper criticising her staunch posture against socialism. On 19 January 1976 she delivered a speech on defence and foreign policy, in which she made a scathing attack on the Soviet Union: A huge, largely land-locked country like Russia does not need to build the most powerful navy in the world just to guard its own frontiers. No. The Russians are bent on world dominance, and they are rapidly acquiring the means to become the most powerful imperial nation the world has seen. The men in the Soviet Politburo don't have to worry about the ebb and flow of public opinion. They put guns before butter, while we put just about everything before guns. On 24 January the official Soviet defence newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star) published a rebuttal of this stance, titled "Iron Lady Raises Fears" by Captain Yuri Gavrilov, who was alluding to "Iron Chancellor" Bismarck of imperial Germany. The Sunday Times noticed the Red Star article and gave exposure to the "Iron Lady" moniker in Britain. Thatcher embraced the name herself a week later in a speech to Finchley Conservatives, and compared it to Wellington's nickname of "Iron Duke". This symbol was widely adopted, as it reflected her uncompromising politics and leadership style, which could be equally viewed as positive or negative. "Iron Lady" has since become a generic term, used to describe female political leaders regarded as strong-willed and decisive. References

Alternate consensus version…
…without the speech blockquote.
The Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher came to be identified with the nickname Iron Lady, which originated from a Soviet newspaper criticising her staunch posture against socialism. On 19 January 1976 she delivered a speech on defence and foreign policy in which she made a scathing attack on the Soviet Union, saying "The Russians are bent on world dominance. […] They put guns before butter, while we put just about everything before guns." On 24 January the official newspaper of the Soviet defence industry, Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star), published a rebuttal of this stance, titled "Iron Lady Raises Fears" by Captain Yuri Gavrilov, who was alluding to Iron Chancellor Bismarck of imperial Germany. The Sunday Times noticed the Red Star article and gave exposure to the Iron Lady moniker in Britain. Thatcher embraced the name herself a week later in a speech to Finchley Conservatives, and compared it to Wellington's nickname the Iron Duke. This symbol was widely adopted as it reflected her uncompromising politics and leadership style, which could be equally viewed as positive or negative. "Iron Lady" has since become a generic term, used to describe female political leaders regarded as strong-willed and decisive. References

And here's what I would keep in the 1975–1979 section: "On 19 January 1976 her "Britain Aware" foreign policy speech lambasted the Soviet Union, which earned her the Iron Lady nickname." Neat and clean. With a cite to the speech of course. — JFG ^talk 03:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• @JFG and John: I've just gone and made a test edit for the section here. For the diff see here.--Nevé–selbert 21:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to press ahead and return the section, as there isn't much sustained opposition. Per WP:BRD you can revert, of course.--Nevé–selbert 23:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Neve-selbert, I made a bunch of copyedits afterwards; looks pretty good methinks. — JFG ^talk 05:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm still not that keen but oh well. Page numbers are needed for book refs. --John (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• I've removed those refs and material sourced solely to them for now. --John (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Where should the Iron Lady section be placed?

Following my move of the section and Neve-selbert's revert, I'd like to discuss whether "The Iron Lady" section belongs in the table of contents under "Legacy" or should be hidden under "Cultural depictions". I see two reasons to move it between "Political Legacy" and "Cultural depictions":

1. The nickname preceded the cultural depictions by years or decades, it's not an afterthought that would have been derived from a biopic;
2. Margaret Thatcher has been deemed primary topic for the term "Iron Lady", which redirects here; it deserves a spot in the table of contents.

Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 06:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• I am of strong opinion that #The Iron Lady should be underneath #Cultural depictions. Responding to the two points made above:
  1. No, but this is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the morphing "Iron Lady" into a generic term happened after she left office. "Iron Lady" is also certainly a cultural depiction of her and her legacy.
  2. Iron Lady redirects to Margaret Thatcher not Margaret Thatcher#The Iron Lady. Adding to the TOC is unnecessary clutter.

I strongly prefer the section staying where it is, JFG. It's fine where it is.--Nevé–selbert 19:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough; we shall agree to disagree on this point. I have requested further community input at Wikiprojects Politics and Biographies. — JFG ^talk 19:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

As a compromise JFG, I'd be willing to upgrade the "Iron Lady" section to a Level 3 (instead of Level 4) heading, if it stays as the third subsection. If you're not opposed to this, I'll go ahead. Upon further reflection, there is no real need to hide the section from the TOC.--Nevé–selbert 20:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: Excellent; I just bumped it up. Also, our esteemed colleague John deleted some further material because it was cited from two books without page numbers. Can we either find those page numbers or restore the text temporarily with a hidden note to editors that page numbers are sought? Without the Bastable book, the allusion to Bismarck as Gavrilov's intent is currently not sourced. — JFG ^talk 20:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Suharto

With a bit of effort one can justify much of her conduct, but it takes some serious mental gymnastics to condone the Suharto stuff. He's not mentioned in the article, but I think he should be.

--Hillbillyholiday ^talk 21:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The "Suharto stuff" was part of Reagan's grand scheme of containing Communism. He led the free world back in the 1980s, and Thatcher merely followed as his lieutenant. Thatcher never condoned any of the human rights abuses of the Suharto regime. This is all a red herring.--Nevé–selbert 21:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

"In one year, the British Department of Trade provided almost a billion pounds worth of so-called soft loans, which allowed Suharto buy Hawk fighter-bombers. The British taxpayer paid the bill for aircraft that dive-bombed East Timorese villages, and the arms industry reaped the profits. ... For three decades, the Australian, US and British governments worked tirelessly to minimise the crimes of Suharto's gestapo, known as Kopassus, who were trained by the Australian SAS and the British army and who gunned down people with British-supplied Heckler and Koch machine guns from British-supplied Tactica riot control vehicles."

Suharto, one of the most corrupt, and one of the worst mass murderers of the 20th century? "One of our very best and most valuable friends, Thatcher called him, speaking for the West." --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Thatcher said this since she was referring to his alliance with the West against the Soviet Union. Similar to how FDR valued Stalin; the latter helped us defeat Hitler and Nazism. Ever wonder why Obama allies with the barbarous Saudi Arabia? Because the latter helps us in the fight against the similarly barbarous ISIS.--Nevé–selbert 22:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Mental gymnastics in action! --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Realpolitik more like.--Nevé–selbert 22:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps. Others may see it more as ideologically driven geonicide. YMMV. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 16:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

What do the reliable sources say? Britmax (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Many label Suharto's actions in the Indonesian killings of 1965–66 as genocide. (e.g. NYT The Specter of Genocide: Mass Murder in Historical Perspective etc.) Chomsky on East Timor: "As the slaughter reached near-genocidal levels, Britain and France joined in, along with other powers, providing diplomatic support and even arms." --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 16:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Given those sources you've linked to, it wasn't only Thatcher whose government gave tacit support to this Indonesian dictator. It was Western policy to do so, and she just happened to be a Western leader at the height of the Cold War. Besides, this discussion should be closed per WP:NOTFORUM.--Nevé–selbert 20:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: Do you mind if I ask how old you are? "Fighting communism"? --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Got a problem with that?--Nevé–selbert 22:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Legacy subheadings

I believe that they should be restored. They help organise information without clutter. I am confused as to why there has to be a discussion about this, John. With regard to Thatcher's cause of death, her death certificate states that she died from an "ischaemic attack", presumably this mean as ischaemic stroke. Would this be a good enough source, or should I cite the .JPG image directly?--Nevé–selbert 23:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

keep the subheadings--most readers need them to find topics that interest them in this LONG article. Rjensen (talk) 05:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• I was influenced in removing them by seeing the daft squabbling about the titles of the sections. Decide them here first. You also sneaked in a hatnote to Blair and New Labour; what was that about? And regarding her cause of death, the sources just say "stroke" and we would need a proper secondary source to change it. --John (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

  @John: Thatcher regarded Blair and New Labour as one of her greatest achievements, surely you know that? I readded New Labour to the hatnote (remove it if you must) as it wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article. (If it wasn't for Mrs Thatcher, there would never have been New Labour anyway.) As for her cause of death, I'll cite it in due course.--Nevé–selbert 19:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

That isn't how we write articles. Find a good and preferably neutral source that says "Thatcher regarded Blair and New Labour as one of her greatest achievements", bring it here, we talk about it, if we agree, then we add it to the article. We already mention the nice things she said about him in 1994 and 2002. I'll remove the two uncited matters pending a good source and consensus that they are worth adding. --John (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@John: Have a look at these for reference: [4][5][6]. These are pretty neutral sources. It baffles me as to how New Labour isn't even mentioned in the article.--Nevé–selbert 19:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to note, I've changed my mind about the subheadings. But I am still determined to source her cause of death (just looking for the right template).--Nevé–selbert 22:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)