Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

→

Because this will come up at FAC...

Further sources that should be at least looked at:

ODNB biography of her spouse - which can be used to flesh out his role in her life a bit.

Also, you'll probably have to justify the lack of use of many of the further reading works - have they been read and found useless? If so, they should be culled. IF they illuminate other aspects, etc, best to incorporate them. One of the criteria of FA is "comprehensive" and the long list of further reading works will raise red flags to reviewers. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

One other sourcing concern - you rely on On this Day for quite a lot, which might be better off sourced to historical books instead, which will hopefully not only give you the information but also the context and the historical community's thought on the event. The important thing to do is not only give a narrative but also to give the historiographical thought on the event, which means you need to use secondary sources much more than newspaper accounts. Thatcher's one of the most written about subjects around, so it should be possible to write from the secondary sourcing more instead of newspaper accounts. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Poll tax introduction & riots

I've pulled this out, the chronology is all at sea. The ref is dated far too early to fit the narrative.

Thatcher remained confident that, as with her other major reforms, the initial public opposition would eventually turn into support. Ref: Wyatt, Woodrow (15 June 1988). "All Thatcherites now". The Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Mr Stephen (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Liberalism banner

Why is this article in the Liberalism project? Is it a mistake, or is there a school of thought that says she is/was liberal? Jim Michael (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Request to Add Items

Dear Wiki Editors,

I entered some important items regarding Margaret Thatcher's 'Legacy' but they've been removed.

They are the 1986 Financial Deregulation (the Big Bang), Rapid UK Deindustrialisation, Abolition of Exchange Controls and the 1983 Regional Economic Development White Paper.

How is it best to include these four important areas?

Best wishes Ian D Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandsmith (talk • contribs) 10:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the best guy to contribute to discussion on Thatcher and Thatcherism but I do know Wikipedia; you should just add the information you want to the article in relevent sections but make sure they are well referenced from credible sources , otherwise it is likely to be removed. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, but I did all that. For example, I entered:

Abolition of Exchange Controls

In the June 1979 budget, along with chancellor Geoffrey Howe, she immediately started dismantling the apparatus of exchange controls on outward capital flows from the UK despite warnings from Labour members that this would threaten jobs in the United Kingdom.

With a reference to http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/109497 1979 Budget

Iandsmith (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I could suggest then is that a website called margaretthatcher.org is going to have an obvious bias towards Thatcher and so does not comply with NPOV and so, doesn't qualify as a "credible source". While the information on the website may be correct, I would suggest backing the stuff up from other more neutral sources too if possible. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I take your point. Margaret Thatcher.org has been referenced elsewhere on the page and I believe it's a credible transcript of relevant speeches, not just of Thatcher, but Geoffrey Howe's budget speech in this case. I haven't concluded anything about abolition, and according to the Centre for Economic Policy Research, "In 1979 the new Conservative government abolished UK exchange control. There has been very little analysis of the consequences of abolition for the exchange rate, interest rates, equity prices or balance of payments flows."

However, I think it's relevant to the Thatcher "legacy" regarding globalisation in that it was the first time capital was allowed to flow freely out of the UK since 1939: "A comparison of data in the six quarters before abolition in June 1979 with those for the subsequent two quarters reveals a total effect of £638m a quarter on foreign currency borrowing to finance direct investment." http://www.cepr.org/pubs/bulletin/dps/dp294.htm

Globalisation of capital started under Thatcher, and yet we don't reflect her influence on movement of UK money and the steps she took to make that happen.

Iandsmith (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This really isn't my field; but you look like you know what you're talking about, so if you are in the right then you should be OK to put the stuff back into the article (WP:BOLD). --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I already put this on and it was removed. Why would I waste my time putting it on again? These are the facts and this Wikipedia page is woefully lacking the facts about Margaret Thatcher.

The wiki editor only referred to the ’83 white paper: “A white paper on industrial development is not sufficiently notable for that"

That what? The north/south divide maybe? Who knows?

So the 1983 Regional Development white paper which suddenly removed all regional development in the UK isn’t “sufficiently notable”. Maybe the ’83 white paper didn’t lead to the north/south divide. Then true, it isn’t “sufficiently notable” and not worthy of a Wikipedia entry. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether the two events were linked. But the fact about the white paper remains and you can’t see it on Wiki.

You might think that abandoning UK exchange controls so that £700 million left the UK for investment abroad in 6 months changed Britain forever. Surely that would make it worthy of a Wikipedia entry, but the editor would say ”it’s not sufficiently notable for that”.

You might think that sudden deindustrialisation of the UK leading to 100000 jobs being lost per month in the 80s changed Britain forever. Surely that would make it worthy of a Wikipedia entry, but the editor would say ”it’s not sufficiently notable for that”.

You might think that the sudden financial deregulation in 1986, the so-called Big Bang, led to the 2007 credit crunch and changed Britain forever. Surely that would make it worthy of a Wikipedia entry, but the editor would say ”it’s not sufficiently notable for that”.

It's your choice whether you keep Wikipedia relevant, or airbrush history. [[[User:Iandsmith|Iandsmith]] (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)]

OR and POV?

Another user has twice removed (and I have twice restored) the text "...which Thatcher allegedly exploited to take votes from the openly racist National Front.", which is referenced to "The comments were held responsible for a collapse in support for the National Front, which had been gathering momentum in working class communities.", from the Daily Telegraph and has been stable for a good while. This seems like a reasonable summary of the source; am I missing something? Is it the "openly racist"? I think this is necessary to characterize the NF and I am sure it could be sourced if it is indeed the problem. So, what do others think? --John (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed it because what you state is not stated in the source. It nowhere says 'Margaret Thatcher exploited NF votes' or anything to that effect. You are simply reading what you want to hear. It is simply trying to brand Lady Thatcher as 'racist' and trying to link her with the NF which she is not. It should be left out, thank you. Christian1985 (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I quoted the relevant section from the source above. What do you think it means? --John (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have read the source and it does not state that Maggie or the Conservatives gained votes from the NF, that is just your interpretation which is OR/POV. It seems like an attempt to link the Conservatives to the NF which they are not. Christian1985 (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well done for reading the source, that's a start. So what would you say it means then? --John (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have read the source plenty of times and I don't need to explain what it means, but I do know it does not say that Maggie or the Conservatives took NF votes which is what you are trying to add into the article. Christian1985 (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL, well actually you do need to explain what you think it means, because it seems obvious to me in the context of the article that this is what it means. If you have some kind of alternative explanation of the source, now would be a good time to state it. --John (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to take that tone and insult me. The simple fact is the source does not state what you want it to, therefore has no place in the article. It does NOT state that votes were gained from the NF that is simply YOUR opinion that is OR/POV. It does not belong in the article, its as simple as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian1985 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. There's no need to get upset, but this approach isn't really going to work for you. You are removing sourced material which has been stable for months and passed a good article review, and you are unable to properly explain why. Maybe you should think about it some more; I'm in no hurry to restore the material but pending a proper reason to remove it I'm afraid it will have to be put back, even though you don't like it. --John (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to be so patronising. I know full well what I am talking about and I don't appreciate being talked down to. I did NOT remove it because 'I don't like it'. I removed it for the reasons explained and I am getting fed up with repeating myself. You try to claim that Maggie took votes off the NF. Your source does not support this statement. The source says 'caused a collapse in the NF vote' it does not say 'The Conservatives gained from the NF vote', hence why it was removed? I will have to refer this for an outside opinion as you are not listening. Christian1985 (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now I see what you are not getting. Once again, what do you think the source means then? --John (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I do get it. I don't need to explain what the source means, that makes no sense.. I know what it doesn't mean and it is not appropriate for the article. It is as simple as this, the source does not support your claims made above, therefore is not acceptable. I have referred this to Dispute Resolution for a Third Opinion because you don't seem to understand why you are wrong? So please stop patronising me. Christian1985 (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's another source: Time said In a television interview, Mrs. Thatcher called for a "clear end to immigration," on the ground that "people are really rather afraid that this country might be swamped by people of a different culture. And, you know, the British character has done so much for democracy, for law, and done so much throughout the world, that if there is any fear that it might be swamped, people are going to react and be rather hostile to those coming in." Until that point, only the maverick former Tory Enoch Powell and the small, neo-Fascist National Front had dared to stir up the fears of those who object to the presence of 1.9 million "coloreds" in Great Britain (total pop. 54 million). Thatcher's statement touched off an uproar in Parliament. Labor members shouted "Racist!"

What would you say these sources say, if you object to the conclusion that Thatcher took votes from the NF by espousing what had previously only been their policies? --John (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter the sources say, the point is they do not support your claims that Maggie took votes off the NF. That is simply your interpretation on the source, that is OR/POV. You cannot prove what you are trying to claim so these statements do not belong in the article. Christian1985 (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it does matter what the sources say.

So, as I am easily able to provide references that explicitly back up the claim I added to the article, do you wish to withdraw gracefully or go down in flames? Your call. --John (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Those references actually do support what you say, although I feel Searchlight (a far-left magazine) is a rather biased and partisan source. But your earlier sources from the Daily Telegraph or Time are not acceptable references and I stand firmly by that. So yes I agree you have now provided sound references. Christian1985 (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( Dispute about whether a line and its source should be kept or removed from article. ):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Margaret Thatcher and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

After reading the source, the source attempts to correlate the released, previously not released National Archive information, text with a political event. However, it does not directly say A lead to B. Furthermore, it does not state in the source that party A gained the votes of party B because party B's support collapsed. It can be correlated by the reader, but such correlation maybe considered original research. Furthermore, attempting to tie one source with other sources, in order to interpret them to lead to a conclusion no one source provides falls under WP:SYNTH, and should be avoided.—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The sources above make the connection utterly explicit though. --John (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

John, the Telegraph reference is not acceptable for this article, why can you not accept that? You don't seem to be getting it. The independent 3rd opinion backs me up. I know you don't like it but that's the rules. So please stop reposting it. Christian1985 (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see below Christian1985 (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

To Phillip Cross; it is stated above by the 3O editors that the Telegraph reference is no suitable for this article because it does not provide the claims 'John' was trying to make. It was removed on this basis, please leave it. Christian1985 (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the citation to a point covering material which was otherwise likely to be removed, rather than the point about NF voters moving to the Conservatives. The WP article says "She complained privately about Asian immigration in July 1979" while the Telegraph source says: "Lady Thatcher privately complained that too many Asian immigrants were being allowed into Britain". We need evidence of what she communicated, and the Telegraph article provides it. Needs a small rewrite to avoid being an unacknowledged direct quote, but looks sustainable in this context. Philip Cross (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me, thank you. Christian1985 (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The Telegraph source does clearly state that Thatcher "complained privately about Asian immigration in July 1979". As a source for this statement it can stand. Span (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Handbag auction

Haenlein (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Michael: Might be interesting to add this piece of trivia: Lady Thatcher's handbag fetches £25,000 at charity auction -- Black bag carried by former prime minister during 1985 US visit among celebrity lots to raise more than £400,000 for charities http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/27/lady-thatcher-handbag-charity-auction

If you are thinking of adding an actual "Trivia" section, it might go agianst WP:TRIVIA; If you can find a way to work it into the article at a relevant section, then I see no reason why it should be there. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The 'is Thatcher dead yet' website, and controversy

This has not been mentioned either:(removed not wiki reliable external)and the fallout in the national press about it. (SWW) 23:50, 1 July 2011 (ICT)

And that vile hateful website should not be mentioned on this article. Wikipedia is not for people to spout personal bile, it is an encyclopedia. That site is an appalling site and has no place whatsoever on this page like that 'Angry Mob' or 'Mailwatch'. Please leave it out. Also we don't need a controversy section, controversy sections are discouraged on WP as they are often very biased and unfair. The article is fine as it is, thank you Christian1985 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's relavent. Some people didn't like her you know.

It is absolutely not relevant at all and definitely should not be included. I don't if people didn't like her, many people did and that site is a vile and disgusting website run by sick people. It is absolutely sick and inhumane to wish people dead and it appalls me. Christian1985 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested. What "fall out in the national press"? If there is significant coverage it's worth mentioning. Span (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel it is worth mentioning at all, as I have said already it is putrid and sick site and just a junk site like Angry Mob or Mailwatch, it has no place on WP. There hasn't been any 'media fallout' that I am aware of. Christian1985 (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Christian can you please link to the Wikipedia guideline that states Wikipedia articles shouldn't report unpleasant things.58.84.237.200 (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP makes it clear that the hurdle for verifiability for biographies of living people is higher than for other articles, so particular care should be taken. There has been one article in one national newspaper. Thus, in the volume of things written about Thatcher, to include it within this article would be to give it undue prominence, which breaches WP:NPOV. If there were a sub-article about 'Death and state funeral of Margaret Thatcher' (eg Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan), I think that would be more appropriate. However, it would be impossible to support creating such an article at the moment. Bastin 10:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bastin. If anything, the website should be mentioned in Florence Anderson (politician)'s article (if it existed). Anderson doesn't have a Wikipedia article, so perhaps she isn't notable - in which case we are talking about a website created by a non-notable person that got press coverage in one newspaper for one day. Hardly a significant event in Thatcher's life. Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above to some extent. But I feel that disgusting website has no place on this site at all. It is a silly little blog its not a serious website it doesn't belong on WP full stop. I don't even think that vile site has a place on a 'Margaret Thatcher funeral' article. It is a sick and vile site. Christian1985 (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately, the one media source also refers to it as 'vulgar'. So if it is mentioned, it will also virtually necessarily have to be referred to as 'vulgar'. And, of course, per Wikipedia policy, there would be no in-line external links, so people wouldn't be able to click through to it (unless it became so prominent that it got its own article, which it clearly won't). Bastin 19:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

But at the end of the day it doesn't meet WP Reliable Source guidelines. It is just a silly blog site, a junk site and a sick one at that. It is hardly a serious, trustworthy site and therefore not a reliable source. Christian1985 (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I removed the link from the talkpage as it seems close to attacking imo. We don't need it here as it will never have anu possibility of insertion in this article. 23:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)

Thank you Christian1985 (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.212.154.84, 4 July 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Typo under Prime Minister >> Foreign Affairs "During a 1998 speech in Bruges she outlined her opposition to proposals from the European Community (EC), forerunner of the European Union, for a federal structure and increased centralisation of decision making." "1998 speech" should read "1988 speech" per the citation associated with that sentence. Thanks98.212.154.84 (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Carolyn

98.212.154.84 (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

== Edit request from --84.249.108.45 (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Thatcher's economic policy was influenced by monetarist thinking and economists such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek.[66]" FA Hayek was in no way ever a monetarist. He was an austrian economist. And Milton was the founder of monetarism and monetarist thinking. Hayek opposed Friedmans monetary views even tho they had very same oppinions on everything else. --84.249.108.45 (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Troubled Images Exhibition, Belfast, August 2010 (14).JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Troubled Images Exhibition, Belfast, August 2010 (14).JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Protests Songs/Street Parties

I do not feel these sections are appropriate. Firstly none of the 'protest songs' mention Lady Thatcher herself so this is SYNTH/OR. Also I feel the 'steet party' section is appalling. I think it is vile and sick that people can celebrate the death of someone and I feel this has no place in the article. Just because you left-wingers don't like her doesn't mean everyone hates her. Please feel free to discuss. Christian1985 (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The protest songs are stated by the recording artists to be about Thatcher. The street party may strike YOU as appalling but your opinion is not relevant here. Only verifiable facts. Prince_Philip_of_Greece (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That is just your opinion also. There is nowhere it states those songs are about Lady Thatcher, you can't just add that because you think they are. Also the street party is NON-NPOV, so I will remove the edits and seek a 3rd independent opinion. I know you don't like it but you have to play by the rules. Christian1985 (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a copy of Q Magazine from March 2008 in which Elvis Costello discusses the meaning of "Tramp the Dirt Down".

I have checked all the 'street party' references and they are unreliable. The Guardian ones are from 'Diary' which is a blog like section, hardly verifiable journalistic articles. They also make no mention of 'street parties' and these digusting comments are from the extreme far-left group 'Class War', I feel this is NON-NPOV. I will refer it for 30 anyway. Christian1985 (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(1) Wow! You seek to lecture me about opinion whilst saying "I do not feel these are appropriate..." and "I feel the 'steet party' section is appalling" and "I think it is vile and sick". Play by the rules, huh? (2) The street party - whatever your OPINIONS on it - is a fact. (3) "Just because you left-wingers wibble, wibble, wibble...." I had no idea you knew my voting record. Prince_Philip_of_Greece (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

3O

Hi, I saw this on the third opinion page. My initial reaction is that the three significant issues are relevance, WP:RS, and WP:WEIGHT. I think public reactions are relevant, hence the various Legacy sub-sections. I also presume the claims regarding the songs and parties are based on WP:RS's - in fact I've found a few of these with a brief search which confirm that the additions are not a matter of WP:OR, so I don't think this is a problem. That leaves the question of appropriate weight. This is trickier. A comparison of google hits for "margaret thatcher" returns 16.5 million hits, while "margaret thatcher" protest songs returns 0.15 million hits. So as a rough and ready ratio that represents about 1% of the hits. The proposed section represents about 2-3% of the article space. So based on this kind of back of the envelope sketching, I'd suggest trimming the space devoted by at least half. I'm not sure the street parties warrant an entire section to themselves, and perhaps the music could even be trimmed down to a single sentence with appropriate notes containing the pertinent details about the songs. e.g. Thatcher inspired a number of protest songs by artists such as The Jam, The Beat, Billy Bragg, UB40, Christy Moore, Morrissey, and Elvis Costello. MissionNPOVible (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Prince_Philip_of_Greece (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Christian, you seem to go round and round in the same circles re WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The Guardian is a solid reliable source re WP:RS it doesn't matter which part of The Guardian the cite comes from. What you feel about a third party's plans has absolutely no bearing on anything here. If there is a solid source for it, it stays re WP:V. None of Philip's edits are orientated to his opinion, there is no editorialising comment. The BBC source is headlined "Rocking against Thatcher". It contains specific references to the songs mentioned in the article. Condense the song and party refs. Span (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the above but I thank you for the 3rd Opinion and I accept the results of the discussion. You might say The Guardian is a 'solid reliable source' but it is biased and you can't escape that fact. It is a left-wing newspaper. Christian1985 (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian is a left-wing paper, agreed. If it is to be called "biased" then so must be the Telegraph and the entire Murdoch output. Agreed? Prince_Philip_of_Greece (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't disagree, yes you are right but you must accept The Guardian is biased. The mass left-wing users on this site always treat the Guardian as 'the journal of factual information' but they dismiss other newspapers as biased. If the Guardian is acceptable then so are other papers. Christian1985 (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the section along with a load of other unreferenced cruft. Anything on this article needs to be referenced to reliable source, as a minimum. Then we can start talking about whether it satisfies NPOV etc. Posting unreferenced material is a non-starter and such material will be removed on sight. --John (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- So now I see we have a BBC article which states: "Politically-motivated groups such as the Tom Robinson Band, The Jam and Belfast's Stiff Little Fingers tapped into a mood of repressed anger, releasing records that would define the electrically-charged atmosphere at the end of the 1970s." to justify listing all these protest songs. It seems a little undue. Which SLF songs were protesting against Thatcher, anyway? --John (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  - Seems to me that the most obvious and direct protest songs have now been expunged from the list. Can I propose the creation of a short-list on this discussion page, where the relative merits and verifiability of each song can be debated and a consensus thus achieved? Prince_Philip_of_Greece (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
    - SLF as far as I know had no specific songs devoted to protesting against Thatcher, the subject of this article. I have trimmed the protest songs section to a more justifiable size and removed claims which were not justified by the reference. --John (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Two separate issues

Let's separate the two discussions. As regards the street party, is there a better reference than the Guardian Diary for this? If not I am inclined to take it out per WP:V. --John (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Re street party. Is your problem with the Guardian per se, or the fact that the piece appeared in a Diary column? I can find no basis in WP:V for excluding Diary columns. The closest reference would be to Newspaper Blogs, where WP:V states "Several newspapers host columns they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. In March 2010, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK ruled that journalists' blogs hosted on the websites of newspapers or magazines are subject to the same standards expected of comment pieces in that organization's print editions" so, if Blogs are okay then Diary columns must be, too. Prince_Philip_of_Greece (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The latter. WP:NEWSORG may be of interest here. I was one of the writers who rewrote this article and pushed it to GA standard. We certainly did not include material that could only be found in an opinion piece. If this is significant enough to be included here, it will be easy to find better and more mainstream sources. --John (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, John. Here's a delicious irony: a few years, I tried to get the Street Party included in Thatcher's entry, only to die under the weight of right-wing hagiographers opposing me. The Guardian's diary column even mentioned this "edit war" between the exclusionists and the inclusionists. So, can we cite a Diary column, referencing Wikipedia, referencing a Diary column? (My head hurts!) Too busy to find the article just now - will look it out later. (I have a copy of the day's paper at home!) Prince_Philip_of_Greece (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

These seem possible reliable secondary sources, but I'm not familiar enough with them to say for sure. The first two refer to the proposed street party, the third raises a street party as a possible response to her death, and the last one discusses the website that calls for feedback on how people will celebrate her death.

http://www.liverpoolconfidential.co.uk/News-and-Comment/Should-Liverpool-forgive-Thatcher

http://247magazine.co.uk/2010/11/01/margaret-thatcher-is-she-dead-yet/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/05/margaret-thatcher-grantham-reappraisal

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323596/Margaret-Thatcher-death-website-condemned-vulgar.html

I'm still not convinced the street party idea warrants a separate heading, but it may be reasonable to add a sentence along the lines of: Speculation about Thatcher's death have prompted discussions of street parties amongst those critical of her time as Prime Minister,{refs 1-3} while a website dedicated to the question of how to celebrate her death has been condemned by members of the conservative party. {ref 4} (...not signing for some reason...) --MissionNPOVible (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice work, and thank you. Your 4th linky (above) even lists a few more songs we'd missed - and the link is the Daily Mail, so the Wikians who knock any contributions sourced from the "commie, pinko Grauniad" will have to tie themselves in knots challenging that one. Prince_Philip_of_Greece (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you from me too. Something like what Mission suggests would work for me. Philip, I'm sorry if you've had bad experiences editing here previously, but would it be possible to refrain from commenting on the supposed motives of others? I am just here to improve the article same as you, and have no particular political stance while editing Wikipedia. It's a good way to be. --John (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)