Talk:Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher

Move from "Funeral of Margaret Thatcher"

I've renamed the page from Funeral of Margaret Thatcher as it seems more appropriate to have a broader scope for the article, as with Death and state funeral of Hugo Chávez. Zcbeaton (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was to merge the article Reaction to the death of Margaret Thatcher into Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher. -- Zcbeaton (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Does Reaction to the death of Margaret Thatcher really warrant an article distinct from one that is entirely about the death of Margaret Thatcher? I think these should be merged. Zcbeaton (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wait a couple of days and see how things pan out. There have already been street parties, and lots of negative press about her, that in itself could be enough to warrant a separate article.Martin451 (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand that there have been street parties and that there has been negative coverage. I would be incredibly astonished if there was enough of that in the next few days to warrant an entire article, though - and I'm Scottish! Wouldn't it be better to merge the pages now and split them if it becomes necessary? Seems odd to create the split in anticipation of something which may not happen (escalation of parties). Zcbeaton (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ding-Dong!_The_Witch_Is_Dead has gone up to 27 in the iTune charts. I don't think some people realise the strength of feeling about Maggy, both for and against her. I know of many people who will be celebrating, and they are not even coal miners or steel workers.Martin451 (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ghouls are they? I find the idea of celebrating anyone's death to be an abomination. Malleus Fatuorum 01:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No, just normal people. Thatcher was responsible for a big change in this country in the 1980's many people lost out, many gained. Many gained and thought they lost out. There are whole towns and villages that hate her.Martin451 (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm very aware of that. I just disagree that the hate in question is strong enough to warrant an article - even the iTunes chart ascendance of that song might not be significant enough to warrant a sentence in this one. Zcbeaton (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Merge for now. No need to crystal ball on what will be important enough to keep when we can use the gift of time to decide for us. It can always be split later if needed, but two stubs that are likely to end up as one article are better maintained as one article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Merge. I agree with Dennis. Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Merge. There is insufficient unique content to warrant separate articles. A second article may be broken off later if there is a content explosion. WWGB (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Merge. I can't believe that there is really a discussion about this. danno_uk 03:01, 9 April 2013 (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.

No mention of the jubilations

The mention we had previously of the street parties and such has been removed. I'm not sure whether this was as a mark of respect but these were a major cultural reaction and certainly notable with regards to her death. I think they should be reinstated. Mtaylor848 (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologise, there is a mention of it, but it is very minimal. I don't know what consensus is but I would say this is worthy of its own section. Mtaylor848 (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Some news coverage [1] Widefox; talk 12:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

i dont think the jubilations of her death should be included...... The lady is barely cold in her grave! Thios isvery disrespectful. I am deffinatly not a supporter of thatcher and was not in the 80's but we must all remember that she is a mother and a grandmother and a human being however questionable her policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.94.197 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a hagiography. The fact is that the woman was loathed by many. WWGB (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia has to be neutral. If it includes a reaction section, then it should also include comments by detractors as well as fans if the detractors have a strong enough voice.Martin451 (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It is our mission to report this in an encyclopaedic manner be that respectful or otherwise. I've tried sourcing a photograph of one of the parties but a freely available one doesn't seem to be yet available. If it doesn't I'd suggest we consider a fair-use file. Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

LGBT community

I've removed a reference to the LGBT community in the article in the section detailing those "less sympathetic reactions". The referenced linked only to a single comment by Peter Tatchell who I do not think can be said to have been speaking on behalf of the whole LGBT community. If more comments from more notable LGBT rights campaigners say something, then perhaps it can be re-added, but a single comment by a single person isn't sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chid12 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Nno need to remove/censor it. His title and organisation would suffice for notable reactions within the community. One can just as easily say official reactions do not speak for an entire country(Lihaas (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)).

State funeral

i have edited the mention that she will have a similar funeral to Princess Diana but not have a state funeral. Diana did not have a state funeral and had a ceremonial one like Margaret Thatcher will have on 17-04-2013. The lines of the funeral will be more like the Queen mothers who was also given a ceremonial funeral with military honours which is the plan for the late PM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.94.197 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Source?(Lihaas (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)).

Uhm Every news channel in the world but here you are...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/08/no-state-funeral-margaret-thatcher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.94.197 (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight

The topic is death and funeral, and (comparing with Death and state funeral of Hugo Chávez) we want to keep death reactions in proportion to the whole scope. I think the undue tag aids us as a reminder for that in the meantime. Widefox; talk 15:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It'd probably be better to use a tag that actually says what's intended, e.g. to be selective. I'll look for a better one. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that there is a WP:NPOV issue. It seems balanced to me. Isn't the issue more that there is an indiscriminate amount of official reaction being added? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I've replaced it with {{Over-quotation}} which gets the point across, I think. Once things settle down a bit, we can start work on making it a bit more prose-driven, but there's no point until things stabilise a bit. Just remove the ones that don't add anything. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems more like what should be achieved. I've removed the "This is an incomplete list, you can help by expanding it" for the same reason! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

yup, seems ok, there's no good list tag. Putting the brakes on hundreds of reactions is healthy WP:QUOTEFARM. Widefox; talk 15:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Off-hand, I think about the only particularly relevant country not on there already is Argentina, but we can wait on the Argentine President, who hasn't made a statement yet. Some reporting on general Argentine feeling, e.g. [2], which might be good for contextualizing any quote when we start prosifying, but I, for one, say let's wait for something more official before we try to add Argentina now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has made a point of not saying anything, that's the impression I got from the press about her when looking for a statement. No matter what she says, it will be wrong. Undue weight is being given to this section because there are very few details to fill in about the funeral, and because she was a top world leader for 11 years, and one of the most divisive leaders of Britian for a long time. It is also the result of the community wanting this here, rather than a separate article.Martin451 (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The articles are bound to be different in nature. Hugo Chavez was an incumbant leader when he died whcih obligated a reaction from heads of state all over the world. Thatcher left the scene decades ago. Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I suspect the sensible thing is to document the initial responses now; add in the funeral once it happens. It'll look a lot more balanced in two weeks, but we'll have to leave it unbalanced for now or the funeral description will swamp it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Does Merkel's statement add anything that the Bulgarian one doesn't give more compellingly? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Merkel has often been compared to Thatcher for similarities in their political ethos. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Point. Might be worth finding a different prt of her statement to quote, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, if we can find something good. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I know I should resist - if we're listing UK party leaders like UKIP, where's the forgotten Nick Clegg [3], and the Green one? We're missing Peter Robinson but rightly have Gerry Adams. How about Russia and China instead of Bulgaria?! undue weight.. hmm....after checking the voting on Chávez, a Bulgaria opposition party got to play, beats Eurovision. Widefox; talk 23:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

(International) Inclusion criteria: how about: G12 + Premiers from related topics (e.g. mentioned in Bio) + major female Premiers + supranational? Widefox; talk 00:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

What other leaders of the EU countries and the commonwealth?Martin451 (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I am astonished by the ferocity of the negative reaction to Thatcher's death. "Rot in Hell" seems to be trending ahead of "Rust in Peace". If this is what the sources are telling, we have absolutely no reason to censor it. Most important, we need a free image of the celebrations. (I am trying to figure out why File:Thatcher Death Celebration, Glasgow.jpg was deleted.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The file was deleted because of (c) problems.

To find out why there is so much negative reaction, look at UK_miners'_strike_(1984–1985), the Poll tax amongst others. British manufacturing was on its way out in the 70's and 80's, and Thatcher was blamed.Martin451 (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: (c) problems" – Could someone please provide a link to the source of the copyvio. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It was speedily deleted due to no fair (or insufficient) use or permission supplied.Martin451 (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think this entire article could well be in breach of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT. The woman was 87, for crying out loud, so it's been a matter of time. She wasn't assassinated, and there's not going to be a state funeral, so that should be the end of it. All we're going to get is a whole bunch of rhetoric about how fantastic (or catastrophic) she and her brand of politics were. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 01:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the point about her age; if anything, the fact that there are many statements and reactions despite her having left official positions many years ago indicates historical significance. Personally, I also find that direct quoatitions are working fine in this setting (allthough I shall not oppose a transformation to prose). Iselilja (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• And if we don't get rid of this article, can we at least get rid of that flagfest? -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 04:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the article is valid - the reaction to her death is blanket coverage on the UK media, and has been gleefully anticipated by many for years. However, I do agree that the idea was to change the reactions section to prose - not the "flagfest" we now have. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the flagfest is problematic as it puts too much emphasises on state leaders , compared to the UK, friends, family, colleagues. We also have the Soviet Union/Russia problem per WP:FLAGS. I think there's a certain irony that on a day flags are put at half mast for respect, flags are put out here. I have no problem if someone converts to prose. Also, this is a colour of the bike sheds issue. I see good work has now been done removing the flags on Chávez. Widefox; talk 10:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This ties discussion happens everythime. We cannot neutrally pcik and choose which reactions are notable. All official reactions are notable (even though they may not LOOK noce to some editors) and have encyclopaedic value as students of IR would then see each states reaction to measure their foreign policy, regardles of what they look like (ie- same old condolence)Lihaas (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly why it should not be in list form, but in prose form, so that we can add context and relevance and keep it concise and encyclopedic. We need to address Why it is important what Putin, or whoever, has to say. There are 150+ world leaders - should we add quotes from all of them? We need to be selective, so relevant political and personal dealings (the Hong Kong one for example) should determine inclusion. We cannot add indiscriminately. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

In list for it is easy to order it, e.g. alphabetically. When it was put into prose form it was just one big paragraph which makes it hard to read. If it is put back into prose form, it needs splitting up, and some kind of structure to the paragraphs, e.g. EU, commonwealth, US/Russia, RoW.Martin451 (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed it needs structure, but simply as an indiscriminate list of reactions, it is not encyclopedic without context. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I did move the domestic section into prose and not list.

Further we dont have an arbitrary definition of what is notable and remove the rest as out of context. RS sources said it, it is official from the country, that is notable. If there are many notable reactions then yes we add them. Further, discuss this before reverting to one version.

There isn't just your idea of what is deemed encyclopaedic.Lihaas (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

If I reverted the domestic section to list form, that was unintentional. However, there are concerns raised on this talk page that the whole article isn't encyclopedic. By adding every single reaction, we just make the situation worse. In order to address these concerns, we should ensure that every addition is relevant, and gives some context as to why it is relevant. What the president of Finland said (for example) is just a reaction from one of over 150 world leaders. We need to adress what relevance this has specifically to their dealings with Thatcher, or Britain at the time. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

We discuss that, we dont revert cause now we have a dispute tag. Anyways, first devcide waht makes it encyclopaedic ? what context? Russia is certainly notable. All 150 leaders didnt react. I find nothing wrong with the reactions because they are EU partners. Further what is notable is who did NOT react. Thus we note those that did.Lihaas (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

We could take context from how they are reported and interpreted in third party sources to demonstrate notability perhaps? Can you demonstrate how the reaction of the president of Finland is notable, simply other than the fact of presidential office? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

For one that is notable, for others they are EU partners jsut the same as others are commonwealth parners.(Lihaas (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)).

Take a look at Death of Ronald Reagan#Declarations and tributes. This is more like what we should be trying to achieve. We can probably get away with a section a bit bigger than this, but a list of every national leader's reaction is not enyclopedic. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:OSE is not a prerequisite. The era was different so you dint have as many reactions as you do today.(Lihaas (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)).

(edit conflict)That's not what I'm saying. I'm citing it as a good example of how we could make the section into something more concise, relevant and encyclopedic, other than an WP:UNDUE list. And do you really think that all the world's leaders didn't make a statement on the demise of Reagan? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Rob Sinden that the statement from Finland could go, probably also Japan, Israel etc, leaving a representative sample of the most notable ones. There are newspaper articles that sum up the condelences and reactions, and we could take clue from them, as to which statements or reactions are the most notable. Iselilja (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The flagfest has returned. Please could someone remove it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It might be better if you added your thoughts to the thread opened at the foot of this page. Personally I don't much care whether the flags are in or out, but I'm not going to remove them before there's a bit more discussion of the pros and cons. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate article

This article looks more like a news bulletin and to my opinion is absolutely not encyclopedic. At best, some of its contents can be merged in the right section in the Margaret Thatcher article. Gil_mo (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It can be improved. The section on other reactions is in context and encyclopedic - the rest of the article could be improved to this standard. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles like this always appear like a news article in their first days, that can't be helped, the events are still ongoing. It's something that corrects itself without the need for coordinated action. Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Factual accuracy?

Someone has tagged that the factual accuracy is in dispute. What's the issue, as there is no discussion on this matter? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Its a dispute tag in regards to the sections content.(Lihaas (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)).

No-one's disputing the factual accuracy though - it's misleading to have that on the page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it - the other tags should cover it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Overlink

Too many bluelinks. For example country names are straightforward and considered overlinked.(Lihaas (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)).

As it stands, it does not look like a problem to me. Linking countries helps highlight that they are speaking for that country, and which country it is.Martin451 (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Mike Summers

I'm not familiar with Falkland politics; is there anyone higher-up we could reasonably quote? I presume that similar sentiments would be available. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The legislative seems very small, about 8 people. His was the only quote I could find (with a quick search). Reuters claim [4] the leader of the assembly said it was a day of great sadness.Martin451 (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The "higher-up" chief executive is a non elected role, so one of the nine elected members might be as close to official as we get. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, then. Just worth checking that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think the present Governor is probably the highest person from that part of the world, but I'm just hazarding a guess. He would have been appointed from Britain though, and I don't see anything that quotes him On a slightly different note, I'm not sure in which section we should include the Falklands. Although they're a British overseas territory, as far as I understand it they're not actually part of the UK. I think in the past there've been attampts to have them represented at Westminster, alongside Gibraltar and other similar places, but it's never come to fruition. But we should include someone from the Falklands as Thatcher plays an important part in their history. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, not UK, not "international". Does "domestic" cover all the bases in that respect? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure. We could go for an overseas territories subsection, although it wouldn't be very long as I doubt there are many quotes from them available. Gibraltar and Bermuda perhaps, but most are probably too small for the media to include them. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that additional subsections would be counterproductive to the prose sections we are trying to achieve - maybe leave as is for now, unless something notable happens to warrant an additional subsection. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it could get a bit complicated, I guess. No doubt the right solution will present itself as the article develops. Maybe the Falklands will hold some kind of memorial of their own or something. Thatcher was highly regarded there, and had a public holiday named for her, so I'm sure they'll want to mark her passing. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

International quotes

I think the Finnish, Irish, Japanese, New Zealand, and South African quotes add least to the article, largely due to being pretty standard platitudes, and redundant to other quotes with more detail or by countries more connection to her. I'd say those are the obvious ones to trim, but what do the rest of you think? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Finnish and Japanese should definitely go. Irrelevant platitudes as you say. Given her political history with the countries involved, South Africa and Ireland should probably stay, but are not interesting as they are - perhaps we can find some commentary connecting the tributes with the political history? Maybe what we have could be linked by thematic paragraphs of relevance - cold war / fall of communism, female premieres? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. It'd probably be wise to get this prosified and polished before the funeral; otherwise, we're back to difficulties.

Secondarily, Russia, Ban-Ki Moon, and, perhaps to a slightly lesser extent, Israel, while having more cause for being included, are very run-of-the-mill platitudes. While the country/group of countries they speak for probably justify inclusion, one Is there anything else they said in their statements that we could include instead? After all, the point of a reactions section is presumably to give insight into what people chose to remember about her, good or ill, upon her death. Banal statements don't do that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, I think we need to show relevance and context for it to be encyclopedic. I considered adding the {{Obituary}} template to the section. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Without any real substance or specific importance to any of the quotes, and their banality, why not go along the lines of the Reagan paragraph, which read: "Some of the early international tributes to Reagan included those of Queen Elizabeth II, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, former Soviet Union Leader Mikhail Gorbachev, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, and French President Jacques Chirac." --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

However, whichever route we take, think there is fair consensus (based on earlier conversation - only one editor in favour of keeping) to remove Finland and Japan. Israel too, probably. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Its an arbitrary definition of notability. They rare all cited to RS and they all are official international leader.s Japan is a G8 country and Finland is a fellow EU country (not e not all G8 or EU countries commented). The notability is in the absence of others (a la Argentina())(Lihaas (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)).

Wikipedia can't list every single international reaction, it must be selective. Colombia, Finland and Japan don't add anything to the article. Tiller54 (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Order of sections

Should it not be "Illness and death", "Reactions", then "Funeral", per chronological order of events? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That would make more sense, I guess. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The article is titled "Death and Funeral", so this should go before the huge bit on sentimentality. Also given the current respective size of the two sections, Funeral would be hidden.Martin451 (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd say let's leave it like it is until the funeral is about to happen, or (less likely) if some major controversy arises. Otherwise, the article ends with an announcement of the funeral's date and location, which is a very weak ending.

This next bit is speculation, of course, but it strikes me that given there were street parties on the day of her death, with only a few hours' notice, that her funeral - a scheduled date with just over a week for people to plan ahead - is going to have a lot to document, and will not be in any danger of being drowned out by the rest of the article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe once the funeral has happened, turn it around, but not yet.Martin451 (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

John Major?

I tried to keep his quote as small as possible, but it was removed. He was a cabinet member of hers including Foreign Secretary, and Chancellor. He was also her successor when she was ousted by her party, and so a quote is relevant.Martin451 (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It's more a focus issue. There were a number of PMs after her, and most of them are likely to have/will be releasing statements. The John Major quote you added doesn't add anything new or insightful; if he wrote anything a bit more in-depth, covering angles not covered by other quotes, however, it would then be fully justified. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not just what is said, but who said it. Apparently he was quite close to her whilst she was pm and was probably her choice to succeed her. The BBC quote is "In government, the UK was turned around under - and in large measure because of - her leadership. Her reforms of the economy, trades union law, and her recovery of the Falkland Islands elevated her above normal politics, and may not have been achieved under any other leader. Her outstanding characteristics will always be remembered by those who worked closely with her: courage and determination in politics, and humanity and generosity of spirit in private." "In private she was very different from her public image".

There are also a couple of bits in the telegraph. [5] [6] e.g. "Her particular abilities, her capacity to fix single mindedly on a desirable objective and achieve that objective despite the odds against her was exactly what was needed at that time." Martin451 (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I have added in most of the BBC quote above it is different to the other one. As he said, he worked closely with her, so it is more deserving of a place than say Ken Livingston or Tony Benn.Martin451 (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Tony Benn was a prominent part of the opposition during her time in office; Livingston, admittedly, is only interesting as having people praise you after your death is normal; having prominent politicians attacking you is not, and so for a prominent, well-known politician to rather nastily attack her is noteworthy. I still don't think Major adds much, but I suppose it's not worth a fight, as I don't feel that strongly. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

True Blue

Is there anything that gives the original codename for the plans? Just a thought. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

True Blue comes from this source I used.

• Oliver Wright (09 APRIL 2013). "Margaret Thatcher's funeral: A True Blue occasion that has been four years in the making". The Independent. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

I have not looked for other sources, but I would guess The Independent meets WP:RS -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. – Sorry, I may have misunderstood your question. The same source says the original codename was Iron Bridge (a reference to the Queen Mother's funeral plans). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The Independent seems to disagree with this source:

• Caroline Davies (10 April 2013). "Thatcher funeral: 'True Blue' complaint leaves Labour MP red-faced – Andy Burnham questions whether codename is appropriate – and is told that it was created under Labour government". The Guardian.

Independent says the new codename was only introduced after the Conservatives took office. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just curious about the original codename is all. As True Blue was mentioned in the article I wondered what it had been known as previously. Cheers anyway. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Reaction

A thought on the eventual structure of this section. Maybe the reactions of various leaders outside the UK should be reorganised into areas; Europe, the Americas, Asia, Africa and Oceania, or some other naming system we prefer. Plenty of time to think it over though. Any thoughts? Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is there are several other ways which would also make sense, Commonwealth countries which are spread across several continents, Countries involved in the cold war (US/USSR/Nato countries), Falklands (Argentina who's kept quite, Chile plus a couple of others). Martin451 (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the non-reaction from another "dama de hierro" is, perhaps, the most surprising. Awaiting just the right moment, I suspect. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Are there many national leaders who have not been invited to the funeral? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"Downing Street said Argentina's president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, had not been invited to the funeral, but the country's ambassador to the UK had been asked to attend." --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Falkland Islands "domestic"?

Shouldn't the comments from the Falklands be under the "International" heading, rather than "Domestic"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned this yesterday after the quote went back and forth between the sections a couple of times, but there doesn't seem to be a right answer. The problem is they're not part of the UK and they're not really an international country. Britain doesn't have enough overseas territories for a section on that, so I guess it's something that will have to be decided later. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

According to the referendum theyre considering themselves british-ness. So perhaps just label it british?(Lihaas (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)).

Someone has moved the Falklands quote into the "international" section. It would appear this is against consensus. No disrespect to the guy, but Mike Summers is hardly an "international political leader". --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

He's not a domestic political leader, either. Tiller54 (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's a tricky one, as we're discussing here (and above earlier). It's rather out of place in the "international" section though. Would suggest it fits better in with the "domestic" reactions until we can work out what properly to do with it... --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the "domestic" section could be renamed "domestic and overseas territories" or something similar. Tiller54 (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The Falkland Islands are a democratic self governing territory outside of the UK, they're international to the UK as they're not the same nation. IJA (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ding Dong! chart position.

Someone has changed the 24-hour chart position from 22 to 2, which is not per the source which shows 22, and needs to be amended. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ordering of reactions

Currently, reactions are grouped into the following sections:

• Domestic political leaders
• Other domestic reactions
  • Social media
• International political leaders
  • Others

This is a rather awkward assortment. I moved the references to Argentina and South Africa into the "international" side, but they are now headed "others" sub-ordinate to "international political leaders", which makes no sense — "other" what? This had also led to fracturing over whether Falklands is "domestic" or "international", a distinction which seems to be getting in the way.

To overcome these issues, I suggest re-merging "others" with "other domestic reactions" and renaming it with a more general name that refers to "non-political" or "general public" reactions. I do think that these should maintain relative prominence after "domestic political leaders" but above "international political leaders", so that the negative reactions (which are inherently notable) are not unduly relegated. I propose the following restructure:

• Domestic political leaders (or should this be "British political leaders" or "Political leaders in the UK"?)
• General public
  • Social media
• International political leaders

Thoughts? —sroc (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, on reflection, I realise that doesn't really help clear up the Falklands issue. I don't think the "domestic"–"international" distinction is particularly helpful though in the context of reactions from the general public, particularly when there are so few international examples mentioned. —sroc (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Some of the problem here could be the undue weight given to the reactions from international political leaders. It could be pared down drastically and your sentence could be incorporated to a smaller "international reaction" section, coming after the "domestic" reactions. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, although the tenor of the "other" international reactions in that line fit in better with the general public reactions than the international leaders' platitudes, I think. —sroc (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Non-English sources

Before adding non-English references, you may want to see WP:NONENG. As we are spoilt for choice, I see no point in including non-English sources. It would be helpful to put back this comment in the article. Widefox; talk 12:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The Notsensibles

In addition to covering the campaign to get "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" to the top of the charts, I think it may also be relevant to mention the one for the tongue-in-cheek Notsensibles tribute "(I'm in Love with) Margaret Thatcher", as mentioned here. This would offer some balance, I think, demonstrating that not all musicians are anti-Thatcher. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

We can't report on every facebook group ever to campaign for a song to go to number one - the only reason the others are mentioned is due to the fact that they have entered the charts, otherwise it would be trivial (although there has been significant coverage regarding the campaign). If this one enters the charts, I think it would have reason to be included, but otherwise it should be left out. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

We should see how it goes. Presently, Gideon Coe is pushing it on 6 Music, and there seems a determined effort by Thatcher fans to get it into the charts. I guess we'll know if they succeed on Sunday. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I could only find the source you supplied (which gets its facts wrong regarding the release by the way, as it was first released in 1979, and re-released in 1980), and something from some right-wing blog type thing. Wasn't aware Coe was pushing it, but have just found this local news "article". Still seems pretty trivial. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(Ah - I realise now I found the same sources as you!) --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the band's site, I think they were being ironic. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

So I see. Sounds like this could be an example of a song where the original point gets skewed over time. I'll watch for further press coverage and see what happens over the weekend. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the band would be "amused" that it's being called "a pro-Baroness Thatcher song." Equally, I somehow doubt whether her family would be impressed with the song's musicality. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone's added it anyway, against consensus. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeh, just noticed that. I agree we do need to hold off on adding it. On a slightly different note I've added a mention of Ben Cooper's comments from today stating Radio 1's position. Hope that's ok. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've retained it but changed the wording and related it to the BBC news story. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd say, wait until it actually shows some chart movement. Otherwise it's just another failed campaign to do something which never managed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Currently #24 on iTunes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Currently #6 on Itunes chart, #2 on Amazon and #1 on Mp3 singles charts, scratch that (23:06) #4 Twobells (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

But surely no-one is suggesting, I hope, that those are reliable sources that should be included in the article? Please stop wasting people's time by adding crap information, mis-spelled and mis-formatted, based on unreliable sources like blogs and tabloid papers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are sources that cover the Notsensibles song. However they do not describe it as a reaction to Margaret Thatcher's death, but as a Tory counter-reaction to "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" hitting the number 1 spot on the charts. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Which is a reaction to Margaret Thatcher's death. There are three legitimate cites pertaining to Louise Mensch and her campaign to knock the 'oz' song off the charts and it belongs here if for nothing more than balance. Finally, I think we need to remove the 'Ding Dong' song reference now as it has dropped to #8, if editors wish to retain it then the same must be said for the Notsensibles song. Twobells (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't want to give undue weight to Mensch's comments in this article, but I think it's appropriate to mention it at the new article on the song itself, which is what I've done. There is already too much duplication of material between articles (for which certainly I accept some responsibility), and as things settle down we need to get the right balance between articles rather than overloading every article with detail. We should be aware of WP:RECENTISM, and reflect what reliable published sources say about things like chart positions - we shouldn't be updating the article every time some chart shows a song moving up or down a few places. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is not the UK Singles Chart. What this article however has to do, is address the tsunami of hatred that has hit Thatcher a quarter of a century after her resignation. Muddling the issue up with references to one of Lord Bell's publicity campaigns is... well exactly that: a publicity campaign -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Surely we need to provide a balanced account of the reaction. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... I guess you are not suggesting that we give equal coverage to the funeral arrangements and the hate parties, as they seem to be about tied in the news coverage. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

We have to strike a sensible balance between the two sides of the argument. Address the negative stuff, as you say, but not turn this into an anti- or pro-Thatcher piece. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, we now have confirmation of the official charts. Ding Dong reached number 2 and I'm in Love with Margaret Thatcher got to 35. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

How the news broke

The detail in this article and the main Thatcher article regarding how the news broke, is incorrect. As with all senior death announcements in the UK, the information is passed from a press officer to the Press Association, which then issues a Flash to all subscribers. That one line flash hit the BBC Newsroom at 1147 UTC, followed two minutes later by a longer story including the full statement from the PM's spokesperson, Lord Bell. The BBC News channel broadcast the news at 1148 UTC. I have copied below the two pieces of PA copy I refer to, including the time-stamp in British Summer Time:

"Baroness Thatcher died this morning following a stroke, her spokesman Lord Bell said. end 081247 APR 13"

"Lord Bell said: "It is with great sadness that Mark and Carol Thatcher announced that their mother Baroness Thatcher died peacefully following a stroke this morning. "A further statement will be made later." end 081249 APR 13"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanj01 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a verifiable source? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the copy I've included, no - this is purely my personal experience from the journalist seat I inhabit on the BBC newsdesk. But at the moment, the Wiki article is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanj01 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I tweeted about the death at 1148 UTC, a whole three minutes before your article suggests the news broke - https://twitter.com/JJ_Bryant/status/321228113461780480 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanj01 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Great to see that we can trust Twitter, Bryan, but not Wikipedia nor the BBC. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the current sourcing for the line "Lord Bell, Thatcher's spokesman, confirmed her death in a press release issued at 12:52 BST (11:52 UTC)" it links to a BBC News Online article that has no mention of 1252 BST, and indeed no mention of Lord Bell! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanj01 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems you are quite right, Bryan. That should be removed, corrected and/or given a supporting source. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It's James, not Bryan. The following Press Gazette article gives some detail on how PA broke the story, but then goes on to detail the UK broadcasters twitter feeds. In terms of broadcast TV networks, both the BBC and Sky broke the news at 1248 BST. The two pieces of agency copy I list above are precise, and are also, in some way, supported by the Press Gazette article. http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/press-association-reveals-thatcher-death-news-and-itv-news-first-break-it-twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.54.200 (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry its-James-not-Bryan. So, to get this in perspective, were talking about that crucial two four minutes, between 1248 BST when you personally broke the news to the world, via Twitter.. and 1252 (or is that three? three-and-a-half maybe?) when the BBC finally caught up? or was it ITV? or did they beat Sky? or do we have any sources that use seconds or decimal minutes? Al Jazeera maybe? But, um .... does it matter? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me. I'm going to butt out now - I'm shitting all over your syntax and procedure! Your locked article is factually inaccurate. Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanj01 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's hope it's not time-locked, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Met resignation

Apparently an officer has resigned from the Metropolitan Police after posting offensive comments about Thatcher on Twitter. I know we can't include everyt reaction, but as this is quite rare it may be worth considering. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Although "professional-suicide-by-Twitter" is becoming quite common, isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

If we do reference it, I don't think we should include his name. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, I would be quite uncomfortable with naming the guy. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Flags

Are the flags normal? I've not seen them before. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Some people like them because they add to visual appeal, others loathe them. I suppose it depends on your interpretation of MOS:FLAG. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It was already discussed above that to be encyclopedic, the section should be written in prose. The addition of flags is counter-productive to this aim, as it promotes a list type. See also the complaints regarding the flags above. They should be removed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the flags help clarify the specific country's reaction more then without. In my opinion, its harder to clariy without them. they should stay. Nhajivandi (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It isn't the reaction of the country, just the leader of the country in question. But the flags obstruct our goal to prosify the section. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Opinion poll

An opinion poll published in the Guardian immediately after her death showed 50% favourable towards Mrs Thatcher and 34% unfavourable, the remaining 16% had mixed views or don't knows. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/09/opinion-sharply-divide-margaret-thatcher?INTCMP=SRCH (Coachtripfan (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC))

Another poll showed the Conservative Party would lead Labour if it was led by a younger Margaret Thatcher. The Conservatives in this hypothetical scenario would see their share jump from 32% to 40%. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/15/margaret-thatcher-death-polling-cameron(Coachtripfan (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC))

I added a bit (see items on history page dated 10:44 and 10:45 today, 14th April) about the ComRes poll regarding: (1) public opinion on Cameron's statement that she was the greatest peacetime leader, and (2) whether a funeral should be state funded. It was taken away again, and I see from the history page that a comment was made about it not being relevant. I would say two things to that. (A) Clearly (2) is directly relevant because the page is about the funeral. (B) one could argue in principle over whether (1) (discussion of whether she was the greatest peacetime prime minister) is relevant or not, but the fact is that this article already shows David Cameron's original statement in a previous section, so it then becomes a bit harder to say that the general public's view on the same issue is not relevant.

However I won't put it back myself. Please take a look and someone else do it if you think it's appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Money money tickle parsnip (talk • contribs) 11:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed it partly because it was misformatted and improperly referenced - but also because I don't think one opinion poll is sufficiently notable, and because this article is specifically about her death and funeral rather than her wider legacy. I'm open to discussing that, but if it's reintroduced it should be rewritten based on a better source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, many thanks for the reply. It seems to me that "notable" and "relevant" are different criteria. Regarding the latter, I am not sure how your argument ("this article is specifically about her death and funeral rather than her wider legacy") wouldn't then also affect the decision to include David Cameron's statement, which is essentially about her wider legacy, and in which he says "I believe she'll go down as the greatest British peacetime Prime Minister." Anyway, if you don't mind, I'll leave others to discuss it if they want to, because I don't really want to spend a lot of time on this and I'm going to log off now. I am content to have raised the suggestion of including the information. However could I ask that any decision please be based on the content rather than the formatting. If I formatted it wrong then please accept my apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Money money tickle parsnip (talk • contribs)

As the article was written, the survey results were that "a third" (≈33.3%) agreed with the statement whilst 41% disagreed, so hardly an overwhelming result either way. The way the text was written also gave the impression that the majority view was agreement (the majority should come first), when in fact the reverse is true. In any case, the survey results are not mentioned in the cited reference, so even if this were considered relevant, it would need an appropriate reliable source. —sroc (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The source I linked to above is reliable and has the information (in the latter part of the article). Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry I missed that earlier. Indeed, that article has a variety of poll results. The article also draws the conclusion: "The poll confirms that public opinion is divided over her legacy…" Nonetheless, one wonders the extent to which the poll results are polarised based on differing political ideologies (e.g., Labour vs Conservative) rather than being specifically associated with Thatcher, so the poll results may not be as meaningful (or reliable) as the bare figures might suggest (at least without a "control" for comparison). —sroc (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Gerry Adams quote

I see that arse has got the following quote in the article "the great hurt done to the Irish and British people during her time as British prime minister", adding: "Here in Ireland, her espousal of old draconian militaristic policies prolonged the war and caused great suffering.". On Have I got News for You on Friday night (12 April) it was pointed out that perhaps the "great hurt" visited on the British people by the scum is comparable. Is it worth reporting the HIGNFY comparison here, just to put Adams' stinking quote into context? 86.23.69.66 (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No. Aside from the bias showing in your comment, there's no benefit in turning this article about Thatcher's death into a debate on Irish nationalism. Adams' is one view (of many) and is naturally reflective of a particular political background which may be more appropriately addressed in other articles but is not relevant here. —sroc (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly not, those sorts of quotes should be given in full. The reader should judge. Whatever next... words spoken by an actor? But surprised we see no mention of Jonathan Miller (who also got a real pasting on last week's HIGNFY): [7] Dr Miller loathed Margaret Thatcher for her "odious suburban gentility and sentimental, saccharine patriotism, catering to the worst elements of commuter idiocy". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think we should be quoting what's said on HIGNFY. This has been an issue on previous occasions (remember the Brett Straub saga anyone?) I'm actually surprised the Beeb went ahead with the show, but that's a debate for somewhere else, I think. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Why so? Because HIGNFY is critical of this unreliable internet oily rag? 141.6.11.13 (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

As you can see, that quote is from page 477 of John Campbell's book Margaret Thatcher Volume Two: The Iron Lady, not from HIGNFY, and it's been liberally strewn across the press this last week. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Tory Grandee Profits From 'Ding Dong Song'

Oh, this is just too good to be true and has to be added, lol. Twobells (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is generally not considered a very reliable source. And, is it relevant anyway? I think not. The attitude of something being "just too good to be true" isn't really what we need in building an encyclopedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Considered by who exactly? Lol, you and you're 'only left-wing sources', you do realise that the DM holds the gold standard when it comes to research right? That's why they've won more awards than any other newspaper irrespective of their politics. Anyway, how about this one then, secondary sourced, checked and confirmed by the left-wing BBC. Twobells (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, I though it was this guy who wrote all those songs? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it seems that Webber's musical version outsold the film version thereby profiting a Thatcher supporter and Tory grandee, you just couldn't make it up :-) Twobells (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I blame the left wing BBC. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the BBC apologised for their pro left-wing bias in 2010 and again for their anti-Thatcherite agenda in the 80's in 2012, [shrugs] so yes, I'd say the Left-wing BBC. Twobells (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

So apologies for past behaviour just prove present guilt? Hmm. Sorry for the misplaced irony above. I'd always assumed that the BBC was treated as a more reliable and unbiased media source than almost any other, but especially such sources as, for example, The Daily Mail. I'd also suggest that the BBC's deft and sincere treatment of the No. 2 "song" in tonight's Chart Show was perfectly well-pitched and well-balanced. I think they should be applauded for their efforts. And I'm personally still appalled that Lloyd-Webber should have made a single Broadway cent out of this whole affair. (I guess we can all look forward to hearing about his nominated charity on Tuesday). None of this, however, can be any argument for including the story in this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Scots Thatcher debate

Senior Tories in Scotland have criticised the timing of a planned debate in the Scottish Parliament about Thatcher's legacy. Worth considering for the article, I think. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

One of Thatcher's legacies is that she all but abolished the Tory party from Scottish politics. Many Scottish leaders are now saying that she – or more precisely, contempt for her policies – was instrumental in bringing about devolution in Scotland. The legacy of her funeral remains to be seen. My best guess is that this fresh "tsunami of hate" may just be what is needed to turn the Labour Party in Scotland to support independence. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stick to the question of how to improve this article, rather than getting sidetracked into political debate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that in the event Johann Lamont et al came out in favour of independence and credited it to Thatcher's legacy then we could add something here, or more likely to the main Margaret Thatcher article. Not sure that'll happen though. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What ever the outcome, the Scottish reaction is notable and needs more coverage. I think it should have its own section and subtitle (H3, H4). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I think once the debate happens we'll get lots of good quotes we can use. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Malaysia and Singapore

There seems to be a bit of an edit war going on about whether these should be included. These do not seem to be particularly notable to me, but a couple of users seem insistent on keeping them in.Martin451 (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Mahathir of Malaysia was invited to the funeral shows that even if they do not seem particularly notable to you, it is particularly notable to the eyes of those planning the funeral. — Blue。 14:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Representatives of around 200 countries were invited - do you think we should include a quote from each of them? We need to be reducing this section, not increasing it, per other discussions on this page. All the quotes are at the Wikiquote page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course that shouldnt be the criteria of it, but the invitation does give some credence to Malaysia. I don't know how you judged Barbados, Bulgaria or Romania's reactions as notable, but if your argument is to reduce the number of quotes, I think lots more work could have been done in deciding what criteria a reaction should fill if its to be deemed notable. — Blue。 15:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF maybe they could be reduced. Barbados was a British colony until 1966 and is still a member of the commonwealth, Bulgaria and Romania are both in the EU. There can never be a proper criteria as people will always shout to get their bit in.Martin451 (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Unhelpful linking. Anyway, sure Barbados is a colony until 1966 and a member of the Commonwealth - so? The late Thatcher didnt come to power until 1979 so I don't understand that significance. Romania and Bulgaria in the EU.. so? Malaysia's a British territory until 1957, and a member of the Commonwealth too. Margaret and Mahathir were both prime ministers around the same period, she in 1979 and he in 1981. So tell me again why Malaysia is not notable. — Blue。 15:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

military honors

I'm legitimately confused as to why Lady Thatcher is receiving military honors. The Queen as Head of State, is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Lady Thatcher never served in the military and had no links to any regiments (such as being Colonel-in-Chief). Heads of Government aren't in command of the military; that falls to the Queen through to the Ministry for Defence and the General Staff. What is the justification for her receiving military honors? It doesn't make any sense. Thanks so much! 74.69.121.132 (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Via the Royal Prerogative the PM in GB has de facto responsibility for the Armed Forces. Thatcher herself designed this funeral down to the last detail. The justification (for any of it)? Good question! Leaky Caldron 13:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec) The Queen is technically is charge of the military, but the Prime Minister is the representative of The Queen in parliament (The Queen chooses who the PM is), the PM makes the big decisions. It is the PM who takes the country to war etc. There are precedents for full state funerals Churchill was the most recent non-royal to receive one, prior to that Wellington, Nelson and a few other have received them. It just takes someone who has done a huge service to the country, above what anyone else of their generation has done. Thatcher despite being offered a state funeral turned it down, and will just have a ceremonial funeralMartin451 (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Might be pertinent to clarify here: "What would characterise a "State Funeral" in UK, and is this reserved for monarchs?" Sorry if these questions have already been answered. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Winston Churchill and a very small handful of commoners have received a State Funeral. There is an article State_funerals_in_the_United_Kingdom. Leaky Caldron 13:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I see it is mentioned (and linked) in the article - should have checked. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikiquote

Given some of the problems stated above, I have started a matching page on Wikiquote, Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher. At the moment I have placed the linking template next to the maintenance template, as I think that is the most useful position at the moment, and it can be relocated later if necessary. I have used this page as a quick foundation for the Wikiquote, albeit that project can accept more and fuller quotations that Wikipedia. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

A perfect burial place for all the eulogy. Thanks. Out of curiosity I must ask, which section would Ding Dong go into? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I would say the "Britain and British territories" section would be the best fit. If necessary, another section could be added (it is a wiki after all, anything can be rearranged later if needs be). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Security precautions photos

I've added two photos of security arrangements in place around St. Paul's the day before the funeral. The section about the arrangements/precautions/policing operation isn't currently large enough to justify more than two images. If it should get larger, please feel free to also add one or other or both of these additional two images that I've uploaded; [8] [9]. Thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but two is (more than) enough. WP isn't a collection of every relevant photo available on the planet. Just include what is useful to illustrate the point. —sroc (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"what is useful to illustrate the point" currently stands at two, by my judgement. It may or may not be more than two if the content or focus of the article changes significantly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

list of dignitaries.

There is simply not enough room for this list. Over 2000 people have been invited. 2 foreign heads of state, 11 prime ministers, 17 foreign ministers, plus multiple embassy staff and ex-prime ministers. At a guess at least 100 countries will be represented in one form or another, some by more than one dignitary.Martin451 (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

We should summarise it - based on text like the opening paragraphs to this article. If anyone needs to know the full list, they should go to the sources, which should be linked from this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

PS: I've started a brief paragraph. I'm sure it can be expanded a little. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

"International reactions"

Firstly, sorry for my timing with this comment. It seems a bit POV to give all the heartfelt reactions to Thatcher's death a big colourful section filled with flag icons, and relegate the less than complimentary reactions to one descriptive sentence in another subsection, as if they're some kind of fringe theory. I'm not sure what purpose a list of world leaders giving roughly the same diplomatically acceptable obituary serves anyway, and the flags really do seem like overkill to me. Could this section be cut down somehow? It seems more a Wikiquote thing. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 11:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This has been raised a couple of times above, and I am in complete agreement with you. We should be converting the section to prose analysis, not decorating a list of quotes with flags. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the flags. As all the quotes have been transferred to Wikiquote, there is little of merit in this section - maybe we can reduce it along along the lines of Death and funeral of Ronald Reagan#Declarations and tributes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree. The section is too long at present, but hopefully we'll get the balance right as the article develops. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Any suggested wording? We keep getting editors ignoring the tag and adding more quotes in... --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Do away with individual countries altogether. As far as I see it, the reactions have been generally the same : role model, colleague, friend, changed the course of history - why not just sum up the reactions altogether into a couple of paragraphs, and then you may 'Other international reactions' inside the same section. — Blue。 15:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes - this is the way I think we should go. It doesn't help if you add more countries in though - there's more to get rid of that way. The section is tagged with this at the top. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's only because Malaysia's quote was added earlier but was removed due to the dubious reason of 'notability'. It's one of the better ways to reduce the number of quotes being added to - which should be moved to Wikiquotes anyway - and the whole 'notable' argument is a bit too draining for everyone. — Blue。 15:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I think they've all been added at Wikiquotes now, and most here seem to be in favour of reducing the section - there's something similar at Death and funeral of Ronald Reagan#Declarations and tributes, so would suggest we proceeed along those lines? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. We should retain quotes here from the most relevant leaders - relevance in terms of global importance, frequency and degree of interaction with the UK, etc, - but prune some of the less notable ones. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, keep them if relevant, but include as part of a paragraph written in prose, not a list. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it worth adding that the Argentine ambassador declined the offer to attend? --Unionsforever (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added it - four words. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Some useful sources

Some useful sources here from the BBC, one giving the funeral route along with some of those who attended, the second discussing plans for a Margaret Thatcher Memorial Library, along the lines of the Reagan one in the US. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thatcher funeral: Guide to the day
• Thatcher memorial library plans unveiled

Funeral protests

Apparently a decent number, though not yet that well documented. Should probably be included, but we need far better sources than we have now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It was a lot less than the media seemed to expect. But we do need better sources which should appear soon.Martin451 (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is one. We might also reconsider the structure and the subtitles. I do not think this battle can be covered by a subtitle "Other domestic reactions". I made a suggestion here, but it was already rejected. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Morrissey has posted a scathing condemnation of the British news media's coverage of Thatcher's death on his blog. I've alread added a quote from it to Wikiquote, but it may be worth quoting in the article as well. – Herzen (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Music for funeral

Should this be added... including Elgar's Nimrod, Bach's Prelude and Fugue in C minor: BWV 546, Charles Villiers Stanford's Fantasia and Toccata (Op. 57) and Vaughan Williams' Three Preludes on Welsh Hymn Tunes ? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC) [10], [11]

Yes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

PS: ...and, a bit more about the funeral itself wouldn't go amiss - such as who read the lessons, and even (given the reaction to it) who shed a tear.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Pictures of the funeral.

I have transferred a load of free pictures of the funeral from flickr to the commons. However in my opinion, two of the best are those I added to the article yesterday (courtesy of the Austrian government), although the second one does need a bit of a edit/trim. I also like these three (first 2 are best). But this article should not turn into a picture fest.

• 
• 
• 

Martin451 (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The first two photos look too similar (i.e., taken from the same angle/perspective), especially from a thumbnail. Perhaps better not to use both. —sroc (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Do note the first appears to show the "Turn back on Thatcher" protest in the foreground, probably unintentionally. Even though I think we should be careful not to unduly censor protests, we should know when we're including them. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Do we even need this article ?

This person died of natural causes, nothing special with that. I am sure death of any prime minister of UK will evoke a similar response, can't we just summarise it in the article of Margaret Thatcher ?--sarvajna (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean "I am sure death of any prime minister of UK will evoke a similar response"? Do you actually understand the subject? Leaky Caldron 14:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Pages of this type for world leaders are not without precedent.[12] Considering there is probably too much information to merge to Margaret Thatcher, best left where it is. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) well response was a wrong word it should have been coverage, sorry about that. What do you mean by Do you actually understand the subject do you mean Thatcher or death ?--sarvajna (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You stated that "I am sure death of any prime minister of UK will evoke a similar response (or coverage)". No it wouldn't. If you understood the subject of the article you would appreciate the unique (in modern times) situation involving this particular PM. Leaky Caldron 14:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

There were widespread protests, combined with widespread praise. This was one of the most divisive events of recent British history. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Whatever you think of Thatcher, she was a major political figure in the UK if not globally, the longest-serving PM for 150 years; reactions to her death reopened deep divisions in British society and are worthy of note; and her funeral arrangements were without recent precedent. Several former UK PMs have died in the relatively recent past - Callaghan, Heath, Wilson, etc. - without remotely the same amount of coverage and fuss. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with you all, thanks for the response.@Leaky_caldron I understand the subject very well Thanks to Rushdie, I first read about Thatcher in his book and later in other sources . Yes the response to the death was unique, but she died of natural causes and nothing unique about that. --sarvajna (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The article isn't solely about her death. Leaky Caldron 14:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

We had a recent politician in India whose funeral was one of the biggest in recent history, Mumbai a city of ten million and the state of Maharashtra (100 million) ground to a halt while the body lay in repose, yet Wikipedia considered that the event wasn't notable enough for a separate article. I was wondering why the death of Thatcher and the funeral is notable to have an article of its own? The article was created and the Afd decided that it be deleted. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The subject of this article satisfies notability criteria WP:GNG. Leaky Caldron 16:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh a seven km long cortege isn't notable? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but you cannot possibly use the deletion of another article to dispute the obvious notability of this one. Leaky Caldron 16:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be named "The response to the death of Margaret Thatcher"? That's what is notable isn't it? "The divisions"? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Are policies differently applied and interpreted Leaky_caldron? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You obviously think so. I cannot speak for anyone other than myself. Leaky Caldron 16:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion immediately above has nothing to do with the subject of this article. If you want another article undeleted, to be worked on further, please make a request at WP:UNDELETE. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't want another undeleted, I'd like even application of policies, having said that I'm told that the divisiveness seen post-Thatcher was what makes the incident notable, which I agree, so I'm suggesting a move, from the present title to "Reactions to the death of Thatcher". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The funeral itself was almost certainly notable, regardless of the reaction to her death. Leaky Caldron 17:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Both the death and funeral were notable as they received extensive media coverage. News broadcasts devoted much of their airtime to the story of her death on 8 April, and the funeral was aired on BBC One. Question Time dedicated a whole show to discussing her legacy, and Parliament was recalled for tributes to be paid to her. Need I go on? Also, we have plenty of other similar articles such as Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan, which includes a lot of information on that topic. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

BBC One, Question Time (TV series) are all British medias. They running live shows or long documentaries isn't something extraordinary. With no one else dying or winning or loosing or scandalizing what will these 24-hour news channels feed on? On our WP:ITN one British IP happily supported for removal of her image from main page because it had been there for way too long. I am not saying his views matters most as they could be for personal disinterest; but am pointing out that the world was quite at peace when she died. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Although seven days have yet to elapse, there is a snowball's chance in hell of consensus changing in the remaining time to overturn the numbers and the arguments against the move. Bencherlite^Talk 15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Bencherlite^Talk 15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher → Reactions to the death of Margaret Thatcher – The reactions to her death make the incident notable. So the article be titled appropriately. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It is also notable who did (and did not) attend her funeral, and the events and protests at her funeral. The funeral was notable as she is one of the few Prime ministers (political leaders) to get such a funeral in the UK.

Unfortunately wikipedia is very biased towards America, and less so towards the UK. Some things that would be deemed notable in the US would never be deemed as notable in the UK, and some things in the UK never as notable as in India. A quick look at a certain AFD shows that that subject would be deemed very notable if it had happened in the US (or the UK). Trying to get other articles deleted/moved because yours was, is the wrong way to go about wikipedia.Martin451 (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey I didn't own the other article, during the deletion discussion there I understood a policy that was implemented that there is always a fuss when somebody "big" dies even naturally, but that doesn't mean we create articles out of that. I was wondering whether the same would be implemented here. Theory is understood by application and I'm not being pointy. Are the various tributes notable, is the attendance list encyclopaedic? Well the Argentine reaction and their non-invitation is noteworthy, Wikipedia isn't a memorial or is it? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. It covers more than the reactions - it covers the funeral, which was itself a notable event. The section on tributes needs to be trimmed, per earlier discussions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. As Ghmyrtle above. Sorry, but just don't see the logic. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose; there is much more that is noteworthy about this £10m extravaganza than people's reactions to it. Brocach (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose; per other similar articles like Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan. Lots of notable coverage of death, funeral and associated events. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously. Malleus Fatuorum 20:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per comments above. Not just about reaction to her death. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per above comments. Whilst advocating consistency in the application of WP policy, the current title ensures consistency with titles of similar articles. However, it is important that the Margaret Thatcher article retain a link to the reactions on this article (separate from the link in relation to her death generally) as the casual reader would not otherwise realise that such information on the reactions is here. —sroc (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: We don't have articles (I couldn't find them) on the death of Winston Churchill or the assassination of Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma; two English statesmen. Churchill's funeral is described as the world's biggest state funeral to that date. Wikipedia shouldn't succumb to recent-ism Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Not yet having articles is certainly not indicative of the fact that we shouldn't have them. Wikipedia is an ever-growing project. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

*Approve: based on the above comment. If there is no article about the death of Churchill, why should there be one about the death of Thatcher? Clearly, portraying this as a big event involves the pushing of two POV's: (1) the Conservative Party is the true party of Britain; (2) Thatcher was the one who made the strongest case for the present neoliberal orthodoxy, according to which, as she so aptly put it, "There is no thing as society." Therefore, this article is not so much about her death and funeral, as about how her death is being used to relegitimize her politics. Thus, the proposed new name for the article would be much more neutral. – Herzen (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Herzen (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

If there is no article about the Death of Winston Churchill or his Funeral then go ahead and create one. One article not existing should not stop another being created. This is article is not POV pushing Thatcherism or that the Conservatives are the one true party, there are enough criticism in the article to counter that.Martin451 (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, as already mentioned above, there are already numerous similar articles that do exist, to wit:

• Death of Diana, Princess of Wales
• Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan
• Death and funeral of Richard Nixon
• Death and state funeral of Gerald Ford
• State funeral of John F. Kennedy
• Death and state funeral of Leonid Brezhnev
• Death and funeral of Corazon Aquino
• Death and state funeral of Kim Jong-il
• Death and state funeral of Kim Il-sung
• Death and funeral of Otto von Habsburg
• Death and funeral of Josip Broz Tito
• Funeral of Pope John Paul II
• Death and state funeral of Pierre Trudeau
• Death and state funeral of Hugo Chávez
• Death and state funeral of Jack Layton
• Death and state funeral of Néstor Kirchner
• Death and state funeral of Lech Kaczyński and Maria Kaczyńska
• Death and state funeral of King Hussein
• Death and state funeral of Omar Bongo
• Death of Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq

The fact that there isn't such an article for any other specific figure that you happen to name doesn't detract from the fact that such articles are commonplace on Wikipedia, nor does it detract from the arguments that the death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher specifically (and the reactions thereto) are notable and worthy of inclusion in this article. —sroc (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree there should be similar articles about Churchill and Mountbatten. I'm surprised we don't have them already. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The list is there but there are oranges, apples and jack-fruits all in one basket. It mixes violent deaths, Zia-ul-Haq, Kennedy, Diana, Lech Kaczyński and Maria Kaczyńska; those who were in power/ active politics when they died such as the Kirchner, Layton, Omar Bongo, Pope, Tito, North Koreans, Brezhnev, Chavez, Hussein, so there were succession issues; with Thatcher who had retired from politics, whose circumstances of death are similar to Reagan, Ford and the PM Canadian Trudeau. We have no such articles for

• Archibald Primrose, 5th Earl of Rosebery
• Arthur Balfour
• Henry Campbell-Bannerman
• H. H. Asquith
• David Lloyd George
• Bonar Law
• Ramsay MacDonald
• Stanley Baldwin
• Neville Chamberlain
• Churchill
• Clement Attlee
• Anthony Eden
• Harold Macmillan
• Alec Douglas-Home
• Harold Wilson
• Edward Heath
• James Callaghan

That is what I've checked all British PM's this and last century. I doubt we have articles on the deaths of any other older British PM. So the above "Diana - Reagan - Korean tin-pot" list that is more of a smörgåsbord shouldn't be too influential in helping decide with this move. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And how many of them were granted state or ceremonial funerals by the Queen? The answer is only Churchill. Claims that this is an attempt to glorify the Conservatives or legitimise her politics (although let's remember that she won three general elections - do her politics really need legitimising?) are nonsense. The Queen has granted her an honour not accorded to any other politician except Churchill in the 20th or 21st centuries. It's this that primarily makes her death significant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Rename The arguments for renaming make sense.Shyamsunder (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is about her death, the reactions to her death, and her funeral. Similarly titled articles are not unprecedented as demonstrated above, and the title we have is a good catch-all. It is not just about the reaction to her death, so the article should not be titled such. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To my mind we should at least have articles covering Lloyd George, Clement Attlee and Churchill, those regarded as statesmen of the 20th Century. An article on the death of Churchill is realistic as there is a lot written about it, but I'm not sure of the other two, as I haven't checked. I suspect this hasn't been addressed before because this hasn't been an issue until now. Any major event that makes the news seems to get its own article pretty quickly, but this is not necessary the same in a historical context. I'm not sure I agree with your belief this article is an attempt to promote Thatcher and the Conservatives. Thatcher's premiership was a watershed moment because she changed the consensus that had existed since the war, and love or loathe her there's no getting away from the part she played in the history of British politics. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, though we don't specifically have a Death of Churchill article, we do have a Later life of Winston Churchill that covers events from after WW2 to his death and funeral. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I should add Bobby Sands whose death was more dramatic than Thatcher. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Why do you talk such utter crap? It is not the nature of her death that matters here. Leaky Caldron 13:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, so your argument is... because no recent Prime Minister, other than Churchill, has such an article, neither should Thatcher, because her death and funeral were not really notable? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that is his argument, he is just saying that this article should be renamed not deleted.--sarvajna (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, so the argument is... because no recent Prime Minister has an article called "The death and funeral of...", this article should be re-named "Reactions to the death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher", because her death and funeral, in themselves, were not really notable? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It was a natural death, nothing notable about that at all. Funeral and reactions were notable, I do not see anyone questioning that. Because the article would be about Funeral and reactions should we not rename the article accordingly? --sarvajna (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Whether the death was natural or not is beside the point, as without her death there would have been no funeral and reactions to her death. It would be ridiculous to cover reactions to an event that wasn't covered here. Malleus Fatuorum 14:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think her death is the main subject here, because of both the reaction and funeral. It's just used in an inclusive sense. So "The death, reactions to the death and the funeral of.." might be acceptable. But that looks a bit clumsy? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If this article were confined to only Reactions to the death of Margaret Thatcher as proposed, all of the content related to her death and funeral (unless found not to be notable) would need to be merged into the main Thatcher article; and having the death and funeral in the main article with reactions in a separate article may just seem odd. The consensus is clearly that such a change is unnecessary and/or undesirable. —sroc (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Calling other people dirty names is a sign of having run out of ideas. I've put my cards on the table, it is for others to judge and decide. Wikipedia for the record doesn't have a "Death of Winston Churchill" article. I don't see the notability of Thatcher death, she was old and she died, she was an ex-PM, so she there was a lot of fuss. What is really notable imo is the rancour expressed. What is so notable about various heads of states making appropriate noises in the form of condolence messages. Wikipedia isn't a collection of obituaries. Having said that I'm an editor with a view, it may be a minority view so the move proposal may be trashed, it may be a majority view, and the move may prevail. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Who is denying notability? We can have a sub-section in the main article, indicating how she deteriorated and died, and that she was given a 10 million pound funeral, a part of which was funded by British subjects (public money). Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This event is sufficiently notable to have its own article. The name it has now is the most appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course her death was notable. The manner of her death is not the essential issue, just that she died satisfies WP:GNG. The funeral was notable per WP:GNG and the reaction to her death, to the funeral and the reaction to the reactions to her death and funeral are all notable per WP:GNG. The entire subject is notable and you being in the huff because your article about the death of an Indian politician being deleted plays no part in the decision on the title of this subject. Leaky Caldron 15:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You really have run out of ideas LC. You come to same stuff, other-stuff-exists and other-stuff-is-deleted. Talk only about the current article. She was old, she died. Is that covered in her main article? Yes! Is it possible to remove that from there and only included it here? No as it would make the biography article weird. Do we need same stuff, she-was-old-she-died, in multiple pages? No! And that schedule of how her body moved is really unencyclopedic; especially when bulleted. So what notable things are left in this article are the reactions. Isnt it? Hence the request to rename and revamp this article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, Reagan got old and died, as did Ford and Nixon. Shall we propose merging those articles too? I think somewhere along the way the point of this discussion has become confused. Isn't it whether we should change it to "Reaction to the death of Margaret Thatcher" rather than is this topic notable enough for its own spin-off article? I happen to believe we shouldn't change it because the article covers much more than the reaction. In terms of the wider issue of the subject, the death of a world leader whose legacy continues to the present day is notable enough to justify this article. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I muddied the waters. I do think, though, that if this article were to be renamed as proposed, it would be sensible to merge the "death" and "funeral" sections (or at least the bulk of them) into the main Thatcher articles so that this article truly is focussed on "reaction". I do not think any of this should happen, though. Indeed, if we look to precedent, there are few articles on reaction to a death:

• Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden (in addition to Death of Osama bin Laden)
• Reaction to the assassination of John F. Kennedy (in addition to Assassination of John F. Kennedy and State funeral of John F. Kennedy amongst others)
• International reactions to the death of Muammar Gaddafi (in addition to Death of Muammar Gaddafi)

Those articles are quite detailed in the fallout of each death with extensive coverage of the impact and reactions. Each of those deaths are also significant in marking the end of an era (i.e., someone in power at the time of their death). I do not think the reactions to Thatcher's death are in the same league to warrant an article independent of the death and funeral. They should remain as one article and remain titled as "Death and funeral of…" as is customary. —sroc (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I was one of the few to vote "Approve", but seeing that Nixon has such an article made me change my mind. I don't think that anyone suggested that there should be two articles however, as is the case with JFK: he was killed while being the president, as opposed to peacefully dying after spending a decade in seclusion.

On a different note, neither this article nor the one on Thatcher herself mentions that she had Alzheimer's. I find that utterly bizarre, since as far as I know, it's simply a fact that she had Alzheimer's. The only mention of it is that the bio article says that in the Meryl Streep movie about her, "she is depicted as having Alzheimer's disease", saying nothing about why the movie would do that. I think there's a definite POV problem here. (Looking further at the articles, I see that it is mentioned that Thatcher had dementia. But given that Alzheimer's is by far the most common cause of dementia, I see no reason why the article should not mention it. American conservatives admit that Reagan had Alzheimer's. I can't see why English conservatives can't do the same with Thatcher.) – Herzen (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that anyone was proposing to have a separate article on "Thatcher's death and funeral" and another on "Reactions to Thatcher's death". Note, however, that those few exceptional cases that have an article specifically on "reactions" also have a separate article on the "death" (which is not warranted here, in my view). I didn't find any examples that have a "reactions" article without a separate "death" article (so there is no precedent for doing so here). —sroc (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I've looked quickly and only found one source that says that she had, specifically, Alzheimer's - other sources generally refer only to "dementia". Anyway, I think it's more a question for Talk:Margaret Thatcher than here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as I did not explicitly say so above. Note that User:Yogesh Khandke appears to have been canvassing opinion, including requesting a fellow editor AfD this article.Martin451 (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Note the dates. That discussion was a few days before the day this move was requested. If deletion was intentions, which logically can not be achieved with a move request, a move request would never have been made. Putting such irrelevant notes is playing foul. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

[13] [14] [15] It strikes me as odd the amount of people who are coming here to !vote whose main interest is in Indian subjects.Martin451 (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Well.... your dear friend Leaky Caldron has already made it sufficiently clear above that the inflow of India-related editors is because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Bal Thackeray. By saying it again and again are your propaganda techniques based on Big Lie? And is it that you don't wish India-related editors or any non-Britain-related editors to voice their opinion here? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with Indian and other non-British editors here, however I am questioning the reasons for coming. Yogesh Khandke has specifically canvassed people he hoped would come here, you even commented on his canvassing on two different talk pages. Yes people interested in Bal Thackeray are coming here, but only because they have had this discussion pointed out to them on either their own talk pages, or those their watchlist.Martin451 (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I have mentioned this discussion to exactly three editors user:SpacemanSpiff, user:Sitush and user:RegentsPark, I do not think they have voted here or will, I drew their attention to the various arguments and explicitly wished they would comment on their talk page or my talk page on those arguments not vote at this move, so it is very imaginative to claim that I've been canvassing. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

And even if they come and comment here Martin, you should have good faith in the closing admin that they wont simply count votes but will read through the discussion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

[16]

Think we have our first good source on protests. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"We want to maintain a dignified protest," he said. "It's counterproductive to catcall and sing Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead. The message is that spending £10m on such a divisive figure in times of austerity, especially when austerity is being imposed on the poor, is wrong, especially when harm is being caused to the disabled and the NHS." - Dave Winslow, 22, an anthropology student from Durham. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced sentence

I've again had to remove this sentence from the Funeral section: "Thatcher had also been a symbol of deep hatred among parts of the UK community, primarily in relation to the UK Miner's strike and her economic policies." Some aspects of the sentence may be true, but it's unnecessary in my view; apparently original research or at least completely unsourced; and is poor language. Was she really a "symbol"? Was the hatred "primarily in relation to" the miners' strike (not "UK Miner's strike")? Were they really "her" economic policies? Best to keep it out, in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

TV Viewing Figures

Some 4.4m people in the UK watched the funeral on BBC 1 and a further 400,000 on Sky News.http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/apr/18/margaret-thatcher-funeral-coverage-viewer-ratings (Coachtripfan (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC))

I guess we could mention this somewhere. Perhaps international figures may also be available, but that seems less likely. I've included an entry for the British viewing figures at 2013 in British television, though I haven't included those for Sky News. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Cost

According to this news report the coast of Thatcher's funeral to the taxpayer amounted to £3.68m, so I think we need to factor it into the article somewhere. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite agree, although the current estimated figure of £4m is not far adrift is it. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Very true. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The £4m quoted beforehand was just the security costs - the overall cost suggested beforehand was up to £10m. I've added a note about the actual costs (or at least what 10 Downing St said were the actual costs). Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The £3.68m figure quoted in the BBC article above is for security and reception afterwards. The £10 million quote seems to have no basis to fact and is just something picked up by the media. (Coachtripfan (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC))

More focus on criticism and celebrations of her death needed

Is this Wikipedia or the Daily Mail? This article reads like Thatcher was the most popular person in the whole world with barely any mentions of the mass celebrations which broke out in countless cities after her death, the snubbing by the Labour party of the parliamentary recall, widespread criticism at her and her funeral by domestic and foreign politicians and leaders, etc. Fix this article or just delete it.--ЗAНИA ^{talk WB talk}] 17:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered taking the trouble to read the article? Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Its looks to me like Xania has been reading the Daily Mirror or Morning Star. Margaret Thatcher was divisive NOT universally "hated" like the far-left seem to think. There were not "mass celebrations" of her death, there were pathetic, vile gatherings of sick-minded far-left lowlives with no sense of compassion or humanity but there were not mass celebrations by any means. Margaret Thatcher has just as many supporters as critics, you seem to have a very skewed and opinionated view of the facts which is not welcome on this site. Wikipedia is about balance and fairness not a soapbox for far-left bile. Christian1985 (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Did someone mention "soapbox"? I think the plural of lowlife is lowlifes.Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does NOT judge actions, it reports them. Whatever one may think about the protests, good or bad, we report them with a neutral tone, stating what happened, without editorialising. Opinions such as calling them "sick-minded far-left lowlifes" is not germaine to whether they should appear in the article, nor can that be Wikipedia's stance.

This article does have a problem, but it's a minor one:: Per WP:LEDE, the lead should better summarise the article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It would appear I was wrong

In one short section, the most positive language from three different articles was claimed as the only reactions of the crowd. The articles made it clear that protestors were drowned out by Thatcher's supporters along the route, but also make it clear protests happened. We cannot lie through abusing sources.

Here's my initial work. There's a lot of description in the sources, so we should be able to create a more detailed description, but can't abuse the sources to rewrite the reality they describe through... well, lying. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Too much rhetoric and chaff

Although it never ceases to amaze me how "death of [major political leaders]" articles become chock-full of quotes and eulogies, I was utterly shocked to see an unprecedented sorry state of this article. Few articles are in such dire need of clean-up. This is unabashed a quotefarm, and has every hallmark of a memorial. We should reduce the surplus paragraphs upon paragraphs of hollow rhetoric and useless unencyclopaedic text, and strive to write in summary style. With this in mind, I've tried to attack the over-reliance on direct quotes, pruning most of the back somewhat. I've also attempted to simplify and render others in indirect speech.

The absolute best [sic] example of such poor editorial work is how the full text of thanks of two separate children is included, down to the repeated "thank you all very much for coming". Quoting Mark and Carol Thatcher's statements in their entirety is simply gratuitous. The verbose text (395 words), can be cut down to a quarter (106 words) without any loss in meaning. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130411045415/http://local.stv.tv:80/glasgow/220638-council-says-stay-away-from-george-square-party-for-thatcher/ to http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/220638-council-says-stay-away-from-george-square-party-for-thatcher/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NPOV in See Also section

Recently there have been multiple attempts to retain a link in the See Also section of this article to Bush derangement syndrome, a conservative political term which should have loaded connotations to any observer, regardless of political affiliation, and the inclusion of which in the See Also section is a textbook violation of WP:NPOV. The first rationale for including this was that it "does not violate NPOV", and the second reversion did not even bother to give a reason. I will be removing this link once again and if it continues to be a problem I think that administrator comment would be appropriate. - 80.195.184.144 (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

List of dignitaries

This was previously removed here, but added back by an IP editor here. I am removing it as unreferenced especially as there is no guarantee the information is accurate. For example it is claimed Ruairi Quinn is the Deputy Prime Minister of Ireland. That would be the Tánaiste, and Ruairi Quinn has never held that job. FDW777 (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Protests at the funderal

I added a short paragraph to the Wider reaction section about protesters at Margaret Thatcher's funderal itself. This was reverter with the comment, "Reverting good faith edits, discuss please, possibly WP:UNDUE (RW 16.1)". I do not believe my edit gave undue weight. The section includes information about protests and celebrations around the country following Margaret Thatcher's death so, in my opinion, a protest at the actual funeral itself is worthy of mention in this section. The protest is mentioned earlier in the article, under Planning, but is more relevant in the Wider reaction section, where it also helps fill out the broader context of reaction to an (expensive) state funderal within a period of austerity and protests about austerity. Woofboy (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to add the paragraph back in. Woofboy (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Correction, the editor who removed the paragraph restored it following my initial discussion entry above. Thanks! Woofboy (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

"celebrations of her life and death" is misleading.

That makes it sound like one thing, and functionally equivalent to "celebrations of her life". It's not normal to have spontaneous street parties and massive protests at the death of a prime minister; that's a notable part of this article, so using a phrasing that does everything in its power to mislead is, well, not very Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.7% of all FPs.} 15:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not normal for a prime minister to receive a ceremonial funeral either. Of course there was going to be a reaction one way or another. It's entirely accurate to state that there were celebrations of her life as well as of her death. There is nothing misleading about it at all. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

If you said "celebrations of her life and celebrations of her death" that'd be one thing, but lumping them together just puts it into a commonplace phrase. That's literally used in obituaries [17] [18] (etc.) and I'm pretty sure no-one was celebrating those random people's death in the same way they were celebrating Thatcher. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.7% of all FPs.} 15:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm OK with that, which I think is what is conveyed by adding a second "of" to make the sentence celebration of her life and of her death; repeating celebration seems redundant in my opinion. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm still not sure that's clear as to meaning. Like, I get the intent is fine, but I don't think it reads well. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.7% of all FPs.} 19:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)