Talk:Margaret Thatcher/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

An observation on your article on Margaret Thatcher

Having just read this article I can see why people are editing what has been previously written, this can only be described as a view of the Thatcher government through "rose tinted spectacles". Having lived through her years of power, from the age of 12 to 23, I can understand the anger of other people, who you are claiming have been "vandalising the text". I think you need to revise the text to show a more balanced point of view on this political figure, or continue to suffer constant attacks from those with left wing views, regardless to how deluded the pro-Thatcher lobby think they are. To continue to revert and protect the current text, will only provoke further attacks from the trolls.

So we should include the deluded views of the marxist vermin and trade unionists who believed that the country was doing just fine with a 3-day work week and collapsing economy prior to Thatcher rescuing the nation?

So we should try to maintain the Wikipedia standards and promote a fair and balanced article regardless of political stance or general bitterness or trolls.

(Now referring to the first writer): It is hard to really change an article when one tries to use facts. I actually think the article strives to be fair and properly referenced (and I'm about as left-wing as it gets without becoming indoctrinated). I have contributed to the article because there was an opportunity to improve the article. That's what it is all about. This is a biography of a person which is supposed to be as NPoV as we can get. You can change this article if you can add or change it appropriately with clear referencing when necessary.

The introduction says, "Undoubtedly one of the most significant British politicians in recent political history, she has tended to attract both strong support and strong opposition." I don't think you can argue with that. She has been significant from both respects.

Early life and education - seems just factual

1950 - 1970 Politcial career - again straight forward facts. She comes over very positively as well to my point of view.

Heath's Govt - some unflattering comments about her.

Leader of the Opposition looks fairly factual.

79-83 as PM - still see only general facts.

I could continue but it will be the same again. Nothing says that Maggie is wonderful nor that she is despicable. Regardless of your PoV I think that if you want facts this is a pretty good article. I do believe that there are things missing from the article which may be included in future or that I would like to see included particularly on the miner's strike and armaments but they could only be added when strong (essentially irrefutable) evidence is refernced. However, someone who knew little about Thatcher would get a hint of both sides of her lovers and detractoes and could start to form their own opinions based on this.

The article defacers tend to either 1) Not understand the purpose of an encyclopedia or 2) Like to produce some witty vandalism (and some of it has been wonderfully tongue in cheek and well done)! (Not that i want to encourage them at all.)

Candy 22:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

re: anon

user:195.92.198.72 who also appears to be user:195.92.198.74 and user:195.92.198.75 (and they might like to get themselves a login, and sign their comments with 4 tildes, thus: ~~~~) has reverted this page 5 times in the past 24 hours...

If they have substantive information to add to the article, perhaps they might discuss it here first, rather than just reverting to an extreamly POV version? Iainscott 17:34, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My my Aris, what a brave man you are... hurling abuse at me on an internet forum? Your comments about a 'wave of patriotism' tell me you know little if anything about Thatcher, and your continuing belief that record bankrupcies, unemployment at a level unknown since the 1930s, British cities in flames are all signs of a country 'doing well'? Go back to school sonny.

Contradiction

The article currently contradicts itself. Way back in 2002 I added the bit about her being dubbed the Iron Lady by the Russians. Someone has expanded that slightly and stated that the appellation originated with the Soviet Defence Ministry newspaper Red Star, but someone else had put in the first paragraph that it originated with Radio Moscow. Clearly this inconsistency within the article needs to be resolved. Mintguy (T) 17:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I added the reference to 'Red Star' after getting the information from newspapers at the time of Thatcher's original "guns before butter" speech. However it's not a full contradiction as it was 'Red Star' which coined the phrase, and Radio Moscow which publicised it. Dbiv 12:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kesteven

I'm surprised Iain Scott has reverted the references to Kesteven. Looking at Archive2, it finishes with an agreement to refer to Kesteven. Besides, calling her Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven is hardly wrong, because she is often referred to as that. As far as calling it the 'Barony of Thatcher' - just where did that come from. It looks naff, and I've never seen the 'of Thatcher' bit in common usage. I propose (1) mentioning Kesteven somewhere in the article; (2) Replacing 'Barony of Thatcher' with something sensible; or (3) as an alternative to (2), deleting that row of the table on the left hand side completely. What do others think? Jongarrettuk 13:35, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kesteven is indeed mentioned: see Margaret_Thatcher#Post-political career. I agree that "Life Barony of Thatcher" sounds naff, but I think (though I dont pretend to be an expert) that is closer to being correct than "Life Barony of Kesteven" because the latter is certainly wrong (see 5th paragraph Styles and titles of peers). I have changed it to "Life Peerage: Baroness Thatcher", though for all I know that might be stubly wrong as well! If we cant work out something which is both acurate and looks sensible, I support removeing the row: the information is already in the article. Iain 15:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd missed the post-political career reference to Kesteven (oops) (I think it should be there, but I agree, once is enough). I for one am happy with "Life Peerage: Baroness Thatcher". If anyone has objections to it, I agree, let's remove the row. Jongarrettuk 17:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is perfectly correct to refer to the "Barony of Thatcher," like the "Dukedom of Norfolk," the "Viscountcy of Stansgate," etc. The usage of "of" in "Barony of X" does not imply that "of" should be used in "Baron[ess] X"; certainly, "Barony Thatcher" would be incorrect. Consequently, "Life Barony of Thatcher" would be appropriate.

The "of Kesteven" phrase should not be used when referring to Lady Thatcher. It is a territorial qualification, a remainder of feudal times, and exists in the case of every Baron or Viscount. It is not, properly speaking, a part of the title.

Removing a row merely because the information is already in the article does not seem reasonable to me. Shall we also remove the rows stating her name, her period in office, her predecessor, her date of birth, her place of birth and her political party (i.e. the entire table) because all these are mentioned in the article as well?

BUT... I think I may have found an acceptable solution: "Life Barony (Thatcher)". -- Emsworth 23:17, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Arnt all life peers barons? in which case "Life peerage (Thatcher)" might read better (though obviously how it reads is secondary to accuracy) Iain 08:30, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What about just "Life Barony"? Jongarrettuk 08:42, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

At the moment, yes, but there have been plenty of life peerages of other ranks granted throughout history. Proteus (Talk) 11:14, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To quote Burke's Peerage, she is styled "THE BARONESS THATCHER, of Kesteven, Co. Lincoln". Her peerage is not geographical, so it is incorrect to use "Baroness of Kesteven" - but neither is it correct to use "Baroness of Thatcher". The "of [placename]" is generally only used formally, or when distinguishing between two peers with the same surname. Whilst the word barony can be used to describe either the rank or the domain of a baron(ess), it confuses the issue when used with a non-geographical title - if anything, it should "the Barony of Thatcher, of Kesteven".

Yes, all life peers are barons (the Life Peerage Act states that they "rank as a baron under such style as may be appointed by the letters patent". As for there having been other life peerages granted previously, thats not really correct: the British peerage became hereditary simply because the heirs of deceased peers challenged the Crown in court over the right to inherit the Writ of Summons to Parliament - and won. Its for this very reason that the Life Peerage Act had to be passed. ThievingGypsy 20:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To address your points in order: 1) She is "Baroness Thatcher, of Kesteven in the County of Lincolnshire", but she isn't styled that, as territorial designations are never used in that way. She's simply styled "The Baroness Thatcher" or "The Lady Thatcher" (as Burke's shows when it gives her address). 2) No one is suggesting she is "Baroness of Thatcher" - she does, however, hold the Barony of Thatcher, just as the Earl Spencer holds the Earldom of Spencer and the Marquess Conyngham holds the Marquessate of Conyngham. 3) The "of [placename] in the County of [county]" bit of her peerage is never used, formally or informally, nor is it for any peer. Those life peers who are "Lord/Lady Surname of Place" are "Baron(ess) Surname of Place, of Place in the County of Loamshire". (Look up Lady Kennedy of The Shaws in Burke's for an example of how they show this.) 4) The word "barony" (or "viscountcy", or "earldom", or whatever) is often used with non-territorial titles. A barony in this sense is simply a titular dignity, and has nothing to do with domains or territory (unlike, say, a Scottish barony). 5) All life peers created under the Life Peerages Act and Appellate Jurisdiction Act have been barons and baronesses, but life peerages were created for centuries before that, the most recent being the Earldom of Brandon created for the Dowager Lady Athenry in 1758. (I suggest you read our article on life peers.) Proteus (Talk) 21:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quite right, but important additional point, to correct a comment above, is that a Baron(ess) is known as Lord or Lady X or Baron(ess) X of placename. "Baron X" would be incorrect in a British context. The use of "Baroness X" is however now acceptable to distinguish a woman who has got the title in her own right in contrast to Lady X, Baroness of Y the wife of Lord X, Baron of Y. Dainamo 14:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

(a) I'm not sure what point of mine you're supposedly "correcting", and (b) I mainly have no idea what you're talking about, but from what I can make out it seems largely nonsensical. There is absolutely no difference in form of address between holders of territorial titles and holders of surname titles, or between holders of "X" titles and holders of "X of Y" titles. Proteus (Talk) 16:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not certain what ThievingGypsy is referring to when he talks about heirs of deceased peers challenging the crown, but the earlier life peerages referred to were created by letter patent, not by writ of summons. Notable instances include the Dukedom of Portsmouth, created for Charles II's mistress, or the Dukedom of Hamilton created for the husband of the de jure Duchess of Hamilton - both in the 17th century, long after anyone stopped making writs of summons (at least on purpose). john k 22:48, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Apologies for Topological_Geometrodynamics

(William M. Connolley 08:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Oops!. The link to Topological_Geometrodynamics was a mistake of my browsers rather than a subtle attempt by me to link in irrelevance. Sorry.

Terms

What's all this about "terms"? British PMs don't have them and never have. Proteus (Talk) 16:31, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe its just me, but I find that the only two occurrences of the word term in this article are not in reference to the official term of office. Maybe this has been corrected since you made the post. →Iñgōlemo←^(talk) 05:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Poll Tax

In the 'Third Term' section the article states: "Introducing the charge one year early led to accusations that Scotland was a 'testing ground' for the tax. Although untrue (Thatcher believed the policy would be popular and the Scots would benefit from it a year earlier) this led to a sharp decline in the popularity of the Conservative party in Scotland."

This is conjecture at best. There were accusations at the time that implementing the policy in Scotland was testing the water, however this is isn't necessarily untrue. The article should stick to the facts and not speculate on Thatchers intentions.

One thing is without doubt: Thatcher thought Poll Tax was a good thing that would be much more popular than the existing rates. Nor is the statement speculation - she discusses the Poll Tax and the intentions behind it in some detail in her autobiography, so stating her intentions is not speculation. She gives a number of reasons why Scotland went first. In particular she noted that Scotland was well overdue a rates review (which would have been unpopular too). Unfortunately my copy is at my parents' house, but I think from memory that she is explicit in stating that Scotland wasn't seen as a testing ground (though almost every Scot thought otherwise!). Perhaps someone with a copy more to hand could check the point. jguk 19:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What Thatcher says in her autobiography is surely not unimpeachable as an accurate reflection of her views several years earlier. She has every reason to obfuscate and put herself in the best light possible. john k 23:06, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Phrase it 'In her autobiography, Thatcher says her intentions were....' Then the reader is put on notice. jguk 07:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, seems like we should state what people thought it meant at the time, and then state Thatcher's explanations in her memoirs (and any other explanations that may have been offered up). john k 08:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A worthwhile source here is Nigel Lawson's memoirs The View from Number 11. Lawson was an opponent of the introduction of the Poll Tax (the index to TVfN11 has the entry Community Charge - see Poll Tax in contrast to Thatcher's Poll Tax - see Community Charge). According to Lawson's account the pressure for rating reform started in Scotland following the rating revaluation of, IIRC, 1985. Lawson says that he pushed for enactment first in Scotland. There seems to have been an element of pique in this. In Lawson's view the minority Scottish Conservatives had foisted the Poll Tax on the national party. In effect Lawson was saying to them: If you think its such a good idea, then try it at home first. -- Alan Peakall 18:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Positive

This article seems too positive to me making her out to have been a good leader where she was quite the opposite. I'm not saying it should be against her but it should be more neutral and not so in her favour. Josquius

I claim responsibility for writing most of it, and I'll be in serious trouble if anyone finds out I've written a positive article about Maggie! Perhaps you could identify examples? Dbiv 03:19, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can say that I found the article to be pretty darn well balanced. I didn't see any editorialising, or subjective adjectives when none should be included. I can imagine that some of the economic difficulties under her Prime Ministership aren't very well covered, but I don't think that that's a major problem. Overall, this is a good article. (And I am very much an anti-capitalist anti-authoritarian sort of chap myself, so you can't accuse me of pro-Thatcher bias!) Iñgōlemo^(talk) 07:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just to even it out a bit lets add the word bitch a few times. 24.80.61.180 08:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent article - best I've seen on Wikipedia. I wanted to add the fact that Thatcher seems to be held in much higher esteem in the United States than she is in the UK, but leave it to others to determine whether that is relevant. But a comparison to Thatcher would not generally be seen as odious, and in fact would probably be seen as positive in the US as a whole, which seems not the case in the UK, and is interesting that a political leader would get more respect outside her own country

The impression that Baroness Thatcher is (or was) held in general low regard throughout the UK is a misleading one; she won three General Elections in a row, after all - so while she never had a majority of the popular vote, she was certainly the most popular political leader of her time. She is certainly held in high esteem, reverence even, in some quarters. Even left-wing political commentators (not all of them by any means, but some) acknowledge that she was a great leader, even if they fail to understand that her policies were necessary and successful. Jamesgibbon 23:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

She should have noted that the Poll Tax led to a rebellion in the middle ages where rich people were killed. - A guy who likes Wikipedia

Gibbon above has been adapting the text to bias towards Thatcher, whom he evidently reveres, to the point of calling some of her detractors 'mental'. There are those who might accuse HIM of being a bit odd, ignoring as he does Thatcher's destruction of the British economy and deliberate creation of record unemployment. Suggest his comments and additions are treated with great care...

Well, if people are going to say that she was a bad leader, then we lose the whole point of Wikipedia. I happen to like her, but am not about to edit the article in that way. People (in my opinion) just need to grow up and give the facts; this can be difficult to do but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out some of the edits were biased.

Baroness

Seems to me that the first paragraph under Post-political career needs a tweak. It implies that Denis Thatcher received his baronetcy after Maggie was created Baroness Thatcher. Should be made clear that it was the other way round (I think) that Maggie was then Lady Thatcher, and is Baroness Thatcher because she now has that title in her own right. (Yes, I know she can also be referred to as 'The Lady Thatcher', but a Baronet's wife would not be correctly referred to as 'Baroness'.) Quill 23:33, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fixed to be in accodance with the Denis Thatcher article. Ddye 02:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposed article split

This article at 33KB is overweight and needs to be split in 2. Please put your proposals for how to do so here. Hopefully there will be a consensus by Sunday, so that I can then split the article. I am putting a note to this affect at the top of the articcle so readers can participate in the debate. Squiquifox 21:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article is not overweight and does not need splitting. Enforcing a split would disrupt a good article. Dbiv 22:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Internet Explorer for Mac (including the most recent version) has a hard limit of 32K on text fields. So if someone edits the article and saves it using IE for Mac, half of the article will disappear. There to guarantee editorial freedom for Mac users we must split the article. I am not trying to get consensus on whether to split the article, but on how to do so. If you don't like the 32KB warning try and get the policy changed. How do we split this article?--Squiquifox 21:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Half of the last four featured articles were longer than 32 KB (Economy of the Republic of Ireland 36 KB, Albert Einstein 44 KB). Nobody split them. Curious, huh? Those who must use a deficient Web browser (it's not like there aren't better alternatives for the Mac) and have not figured out how to edit one section of an article at a time may want to focus on the many articles that are smaller than 32 KB. The requirement for a split of a 33 KB article is simply not there, and I tend to agree with Dbiv that it would disrupt the article. Rl 21:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to know how you're planning on enforcing your demands. Proteus (Talk) 23:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The idea that articles need to be split after 32KB is obsolete. It is certainly not a hard rule, and a 33 KB article is perfectly appropriate. john k 00:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have brought the issue of whether articles should be split/slimmed or not to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).Squiquifox 02:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

well, if you split the article, I will just un-split it. It would make it a biased article, but people seem to be biased about her and split over her so maybe we should split it??!!

Right Honorable

While I'm not familiar enough with British traditions to change Dbiv's edit, Forms of adress in the United Kingdom is one among several other pages that says that 'The Rt. Hon.' is proper for Baroness, and that the PC post-nominal is used by peers precisely because they are already entitled to 'The Rt. Hon.' due to their peerage rank. Ddye 04:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Although I'm sure there are individual peers who break convention, PC is generally only used when The Rt. Hon. is difficult to use before the name. Only one should be used. Timrollpickering 10:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Intro

I've tried to rectify a couple of aspects of the intro that seemed to lack accurate statement of the issue or to clarify the nature and scale of her impact. I haven't done much but I think it did need a few changes, could someone take a look and check it out? Thanks FT2 09:10, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me, though I've made a (very minor) change to your changes. Good work.

James F. (talk) 13:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Friendship with Pinochet

I once heard Thatcher was very friendly with Pinochet, the right-wing, brutal dictator of Chile, and that she tried to protect him from going on trial. If this really is true, then I believe it should be mentioned somewhere.

See under the section Post political career. Iain 09:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW. Under the picture of Thatcher and Pinochet it says that Pinochet is "former ex-president of Chile". Is he president once again or has someone else taken over as ex-president?--Nwinther 13:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Excessive profanities?

What on earth are sentences like "again, draw your own conclusions...was she talking to Nancy at old Ron's funeral? I think not!", "Evil witch" or "and f***** everyone in the ass" doing in a supposedly neutral article? Especially if the talk page marks it as "one of the best articles that the Wikipedia community has produced"...

's called vandalism - being an encyclopedia that any one can edit, such things happen, but are generally dealt with rapidly. See the edit history [1] for the extent of it. :) --zippedmartin 06:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

And the graduate of Oxford University Margaret Thatcher as prime Minister was DENIED AN HONORARY DOCTORATE FROM OXFORD which is a traditional honor for a Prime Minister and especially alumnus - the faculty and dons voted to deny her this honor and it was at the time proof of her very dubious spproval by British society - Oxford is also conservative politically - and I do not have the exact dates but I can find them - also there is a brilliant cartoon of David Levine in the New York Review of Books cariacturing the defrocked alumnus at the time - also she sluffed it off and hissed some political red baiting at the ungrateful dons - they stood firm and it was polled and found that they highly disapproved and more highly disliked her to the point of derision - they found her policies like her manner nasty inhumane and inhuman - and for all her ice cream preservatives,bad chemistry all around.She was denied a traditonal and great honor- seeing that such an honor goes to those who actually contribute to culture rather than punishng it.

Mad cow disease and liberalization

I once heard that the beef industry in Britain was destroyed due to Thatcher's curtailing government control over the farm industry. I know it may sound like a stretch, but the professor did do such a good job supporting his accusation that the claim stuck in my brain since then. I would encourage fellow wikipedians to research on it. Is there any chance of such a claim sticking in this article, or will it be purged immediately?

I appreciate that some people saw Thatcher as a mad cow but please don't go accusing her of causing Mad Cow's disease.

Wow

I just wanted to say this article is excellent. Kudos to the editors!--JiFish 21:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Mrs. Sir Mr. Margaret Denis Thatcher, &c.

I noticed at one point on her list of titles, pre-Privy Counsel, the IL being listed as 'Mrs. Denis Thatcher'. Now I believe in formality as much as anyone else, but given the family dynamic alone, much less common courtesy and convention in a more liberal era, I changed it to 'Mrs. Margaret Thatcher'. 'Mrs' still reflects her marraige, as does the surname change — we needn't belittle an objectively major female political figure by adhering to the impression that she ever referred to herself with her husband's forename. Wally 04:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The 'family dynamic' that you assume is not the case. Biographies of both spouses suggest that they were traditional in their view of a woman's role. Margaret Thatcher (her professional and informal style) would have been Mrs. Denis Thatcher for formal style. To call her Mrs. Margaret Thatcher in a formal context indicates that she is widowed. To summarise: She may have been called "Margaret Thatcher" but her title was "Mrs. Denis Thatcher". I have changed the article. Should we explain this in a footnote to avoid offending [insert inoffensive word for "revisionist liberals typed with a smile" here]? --Theo (Talk) 07:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not 'belittling' to use a woman's traditional style. Sure, it's sex discrimination, makes it seem like the husband "owns" the wife, blah, blah... but it's still her official formal title. Besides, I doubt many reasonable women would take it as discrimination if they were addressed as Mrs. Denis Thatcher... they would understand it's just traditional and is not taken to mean ownership. Besides, if we change Margaret's style list to "Mrs. Margaret Thatcher," then we might as well also change Princess Michael of Kent to HRH Princess Marie-Christine of Kent. (if you didn't know, that's wrong) Matjlav 14:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did know it's wrong, but thanks for the patronizing note in any case.

A footnote would, I think, be wise to avoid the same confusion in which I was taken — and in general I'm quite up with my styles. It would be helpful just for the purposes of clarification. Wally 21:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Listing of full titles

I recently added a list of full titles to the Early Life section, and it was deleted with a comment of "yuck." To avoid that happening again, would anyone mind if I put a full list of titles in the "Titles and honours" section? I'm going to put it in there, and if anyone wants, they can delete it and give me a comment in here. Matjlav 18:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For a start, it's not her legal name ("Her Ladyship" certainly isn't part of her legal name, and the territorial designation isn't either]]. Also, apart from the peerage format, it's just the full version of all the post-nominals already listed at the beginning of the article. If people want to know how peers' names are given in legal documents, they can read the Peerage series. Listing the full titles in every article on a peer is just silly, and a complete waste of space. Proteus (Talk) 22:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Title in the beginning of the article

Lady Thatcher is currently called "Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher." The listing of her surname, and being called Baroness Thatcher at the same time, seems a little bit redundant to me. I looked it up, and the London Gazette refers to her as "Margaret Hilda, Baroness THATCHER". [2] It's my understanding that if a life peer's surname is the same as the name of the barony, then "<givenname(s)>, Baron/ess <barony/surname>" is all that's necessary. Does anyone think otherwise?

• Oops, forgot to sign. Matjlav 19:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's her legal name, certainly, but then the legal name of all peers is "<Honorific> <First Names>, <Rank> (of) <Title>)". It is, however, encyclopaedic practice to include the surname, otherwise we'd have to start the article on Edward Fitzalan-Howard, 18th Duke of Norfolk "Edward William, Duke of Norfolk", which is hardly helpful. Proteus (Talk) 21:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Massive Vandalism

I reverted and added a temporary vandalism protection to the page until administrators can decide what to do.

This vandal was using three different IP addresses and vandalized the page 10 times.

User:Ted-m

Ten times isn't that much, and each vandalism attempt was reverted within three minutes each time. I don't think page protection is warranted in this case. JYolkowski // talk 01:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, people will get bored.