Conservatism Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please provide evidence that Thatcher was an imperialist. As already stated when I removed it in the first place, it's hard to see how anyone that gave independence to Kiribati, Saint Vincent & Grenadines, Vanuatu, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Brunei, and signed away Hong Kong (the transfer of which is almost universally seen as the definitive end of the Empire) could be an imperialist. Thatcher reduced the territories overseas possessed by the United Kingdom to just those whose populations consented to British overseas status (which was defined by Thatcher by the British Nationality Act 1981). That is, by any definition, she ended the Empire.

Writing things like 'I created this template, and I have the final say' go directly against Wikipedia policy on ownership of articles. Bastin 12:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please Bastin I can see where the creator is coming from. Thatcher never wanted to sign of parts of the Empire because if that happened her relationship with Reagan would have ended. Thatcher said that she missed the Empire and loved it various times and if you where poltically informed and astute, you will be aware of this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.168.194 (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, anonymous person. You've provided no references for that whatsoever. You will also note that Thatcherism is the adherence to policies that formed a coherent agenda, not those opinions that Thatcher may or may not have said in passing once upon a time and then did the opposite of when she was in office. The person that first put it 'Imperialism' also attempted to put Thatcherism in a template on the far-right; clearly, that demonstrates politically ignorance and lack of astuteness, and not my position. Bastin 14:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Everyone knows that. The Empire was failing and Thatcher loved it. Why do you think she wanted to keep Falklands Islands. Bastin, you think that you are a libertarian God but snap out of your dream. You might think that you are Omnipotent but this is my template. I shall reap what I sow! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Twelfth Doctor (talk • contribs) 15:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Everyone knows that' is clearly incorrect, and you have (again, but unsurprisingly) decided not to provide evidence to support your POV (you have a track record of making absurd POV edits on Thatcher, and just said your edit was justified because you're a socialist - hmm...). Thatcher wanted to keep the Falkland Islands because its inhabitants wanted to be British, and the governor requested help; I know you communists have problems understanding the consent principle, but that's the opposite of imperialism. Furthermore, and I'll say this again despite your ignoring me before, this is not 'your' template; read the policy on ownership of articles, or else your edits will be considered vandalism in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

Oh, and don't call me a fascist just because you love the state. Bastin 15:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from but you have got to understand that Thatcher loves the Empire. The people of Hong Kong wanted independence a she didn't think it necessary to cause a war. Thatcher did sign off Hong Kong with compunction and was proud that the Empire influenced her Britain.

I apologize if I insulted you but you did call me a communist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Twelfth Doctor (talk • contribs) 10:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm explaining that, you still have not provided references. I just googled 'Thatcher, imperialism', and found the only references to her being an imperialist from self-published Trotskyite sources. That is, it is a position held only by the tiniest of minorities, which equates everything with imperialism, and it is not reflected in the general literature. As Wikipedia is based on the principle of verifiability (as well as collaboration, might I add), you must provide references to support your assertion if challenged. I have challenged it; you have not provided references, but only your own argument.

Because you are providing your own argument in place of any other, and introduced your own ideology in BIG BLOCK CAPITAL LETTERS, I equated your position (that of a self-identified socialist!) with the only group in the literature that calls Thatcher an imperialist: communists. I did not believe that untoward. I did, however, believe it to be untoward for you to bring my libertarianism - which I had not mentioned here - into discussion and equate it to (national) socialism. Bastin 10:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You may want toi defend your 'goddess' but she is a Thatcherite. There are speeches inmplying that she is an Imperialist, however, I shall search for more proof. You might realize that this is my template, people like you are strong beleivers in reaped what you sow. I reaped this template, I shall sow this template. I think it is unnecessary to patronize me because I am very well political informed and because I am the better man, I apologized for offending you (nevertheless, I was speaking the truth). But the nerve to even insinuated that I was a Nazi by saying: I did, however, believe it to be untoward for you to bring my libertarianism - which I had not mentioned here - into discussion and equate it to (national) socialism. was evil and shows your absolute folly. Shame on you. By the way, Sarah Palin is a Thatcher (research that for yourself) and Thatcher was a nationalist. She used the National Front to frighten away immigrants because she had strict anti-immigration rules. You should also be aware of the fact that she said that Conservative Party is a National Party. Her nationalism led to something called the BNP. You cannot deny that fact.

No matter how many times you use that pathetic metaphor of reaping what you sow, you're never going to counteract the fact that WIKIPEDIA POLICY explicitly states that the creator of an article has no greater editorial say than anyone else: "If you do not want your writing to be edited and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." If you don't like the idea of others improving upon your work, feel free to leave Wikipedia.

I didn't suggest you were a Nazi. I said that fascism is a form of socialism (when is undeniably true), and, thus, that I don't deserve the moniker. But thanks for trying to understand political philosophy anyway. You have claimed to be a better man for apologising, and then said "I was speaking the truth", and so I don't think you understand what an apology is. Frankly, I don't give a damn if you're polite to me, as long as you stick to Wikipedia policy in other regards, which is something that you clearly have not.

I suggest that you do the research, in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability, but also for your own sake, because you seem woefully ill-informed of the matter. How can a party that ran on a slogan under a picture of a Black British man, "Labour call him Black. We call him British" be nationalist?! The National Front was quite successful under Labour (0.6% in 1979), and then collapsed in support when Thatcher came to power (0.2% in 1983). Similarly, the BNP was an insignificant party up to 1997 (0.1% in 1997), and then became successful only under Labour (0.7% in 2005; 2 MEPs in 2009). Coincidence? I think not. And, yes, the Conservative Party has often called itself the only national party, because it's the only one to field candidates in all of the United Kingdom, and, thus, the only one that is national. It is not a reference to nationalism. Bastin 16:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your right to say that Thatcher was not an Imperialist. After close reflection I have realized that as the CREATOR of the template, Imperialism may not apply to all of Thatcherite politics. But you have protected Thatcher too much. Despite, my socialist beliefs, it is a FACT that Thatcher was a Tory. Toryism is a part of the Tory Party! Please stop changing that!

Nationalism may seem very controversial and with pace, Thatcher did love her country. She was extremely patriotic and had a strong desire for the Falkland Islanders to be British! She said her party was a national party and she was also a staunch monarchist emphasising nationalism. She raised her daughter in a nationalist way which is why Carol Thatcher is a strong racist! Look at this: [1]. There is the nationalist traits that Thatcher stood for in the Conservative Party today eg: Why are followers of Cameronism called Cameroons? (that is a rhetorical question)

If you look on this site ([2]) you will realize that Thatcher was an antifeminist. Thatcherism is still encompassed within the Conservative Party because there is no Shadow Minister for Women and Equality

Please allow put truths on this template PLEASE!

Thank you, God bless!

The 12th Doctor

Creator and Frequent Editor of Blairism and Thatcherism Templates.

The Tory Party doesn't exist. It was renamed the Conservative Party one and three-quarter centuries ago, when Toryism stopped being the guiding philosophy of the party (that is, when the party accepted widening the suffrage and encompassing all classes and religious groups).

You do not seem to understand the difference between the terms 'nationalism' and 'patriotism'. Nationalism is not a trait in the Conservative Party at all. The actions of her daughter are not a reflection on her ideology any more than Euan Blair being found drunk in Leicester Square is a reflection of Tony Blair's philosophy revolving around teenage alcoholism. Your supposedly 'rhetorical' question about Cameroon is perhaps indicative of the tenor of your arguments. Pathetic.

Thatcher was the first female Prime Minister and a role model for women everywhere. She was therefore an arch-feminist.

As for your supposed 'truth', please see Wikipedia:Verifiability AGAIN. Bastin 16:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Material to be included in templates should reasonably receive the same standard of WP:VERIFIABILITY as any other material, and to date, despite all the rhetoric, no evidence to support the addition of the material has been put forward. Should reliable sources clearly indicating the relevance of the subjects be produced, then there might be a basis for continuing this discussion. Without such sourcing, however, I can see no reason to discuss how we should allow, basically, one person's unsubstantiated opinions to dictate the content of this or any other pages, of any kind, here. John Carter (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are mistaking. When I was at school, my politics teacher told me that nationalism is a form of patriotism and can lead to rather offensive beliefs. Thatcher was very patriotic. You seem to realize that many political scientists know the Conservatives as the Tories. Thatcher said many times she was a nationalist. Also she was very hostile towards feminists later on in her political career. Oh dear Bastin, you have lost the debate! Also, to be drunk at a party is normal for a teenage to be brought up as a racist it is not. Read the weblinks I have given you. They might TEACH you BOTH something. The fact that you have prejudice towards socialist is has proved that you both are in denial. I recommend that you both RESEARCH! I shall temporarily edit my page and raise this issue with HIGHER authorities.

God bless you both, Happy Researching,

The 12th Doctor

Creator, Leader and Frequent Editor of The Blairism and Thatcherism templates —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Twelfth Doctor (talk • contribs) 17:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By all means, raise the matter to higher authorities. They will conclude that you have pointedly refused to file an RfC, despite having been told by me that would be the most reasonable way to go. You have also persisted in trying to add material without requested sourcing to establish relevance, and, basically, done nothing but apparently say that your opinion, simply because it is your opinion, is sufficient basis to change this template. I regret to say "your teacher" is not a reliable source in this regard. The zeenews site spcifically says that it it in the opinion of one critic that she was antifeminist. One critic's opinion is not sufficient to alter a template regrding a figure written about so regulrly and at such length as Margaret Thatcher. It wouldn't even probably merit inclusion in the article on Margaret Thatcher based on such scant evidence. The mail archive source seems to be a message board addition, which failes WP:RS and thus is not sufficient as sourcing for really anything. So, basically, as far as I can see, you are attempting to add these items to this templage based on one person's opinion, regarding the antifeminist point, and a message board. I very seriously doubt either is sufficient to add such material anywhere in wikipedia, partiularly for such a prominent and widely discussed figure as Margaret Thatcher. They might qualify for inclusion somewhere on the basis of WP:FRINGE, but I very seriously doubt anyone else would consider them sufficient sourcing for addition to a template. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh John, I am your boss in this case. The issue will be in the process of being raised by higher authorities. Look at this site [[3]] Maybe that will teach you something you obstinate, supercilious man! If I were you I would leave my template alone until you find me some backbone to support you WEAK argument. If not I shall have you blocked by higher authorities and believe me the Chief Editor, Creator and Leader of the Blairism and Thatcherism templates is NOT for changing!!

Thank you, May God bless you (and that was a real benediction by the way) The 12th Doctor

Creator, Co-ordinator and Chief Editor of The Blairism and Thatcherism templates Director of New Politics Series —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Twelfth Doctor (talk • contribs) 17:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did look at the site. Inteestingly, it isn't ours, so, while it is reliable, its content and definitions are not necessarily identical to those used in our articles here, and the template would link to our articles, not their's. I also note that she is not in fact named in the article, so in effect using it as a source for inclusion might be seen to violate WP:SYNTH. And I urge you to perhaps cease the name calling as per WP:NPA. Also, I again point out that, if it were me and I honestly believed I had a case for the additions, I would file a RfC as I have indicated to you you could reasonably do in this instance. You have not chosen to do so, but have, instead, chosen to keep restoring the material in the face of a clear lack of consensus to add them. This somewhat reasonably calls into question your judgement in this matter. John Carter (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those definitions are, as stated, interesting to someone that uses Encarta, but are entirely redundant to this discussion. Clearly, the first definition does not apply (because the UK was always independent), and neither does the third definition (because it's not related to the concept of nation or ethnicity at all). That leaves the third definition: patriotism. I'm not going to disagree that Thatcher was a patriot (as already stated), so feel free to include it. Then again, almost all leaders are, so that might be somewhat redundant. The clear implication of your using 'nationalism' instead of 'patriotism' is that you are deliberately using the term nationalism to equate Thatcher to the BNP or NF, as your editing of ((UK far right)) also illustrates. Neither that edit or this is from a neutral point of view, and they are both unverified by reliable sources, hence our reversions of your edits.

Please cease insulting other users. Also, please cut the crap about your supposed credentials, which violates ownership. It's also very sad from a purely human point of view. Bastin 17:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Look Bastin, there is no need to insult and bully people just because you cannot accept other people's views. If you watched Question Time then you would the position that some people like Nick Griffin cannot accept facts and are in self-denial. You know you are just like Griffin himself! I am just a researcher who is well informed and wanted to correct the ill-informed wikipedia. I know you covet and envy knowledge and astuteness but I haven't got a bachelor's in PPE not psychology for attention seeking narcissists like yourself! Goodbye! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.46.172 (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't remember insulting anyone, whereas you just compared me to a fascist AGAIN. I merely pointed you to the most important research that one can make to improve Wikipedia, and you've seemingly continued to ignore it. But here's some more homework for you; Wikipedia:Sock puppetry is a serious issue. Please desist or you will be blocked. Bastin 10:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I can guarantee there wont be any sock-puppeting again. But, don't you think Thatcher was English nationalist. This isn't to equate her to NF, BNP unlike the editor said because one wanted to do that they would had called her fascist. She did want alot of English-based government which was shown from her very, very unionist beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.247.39 (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ultraconservatism and social conservatism are other ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.46.171 (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fact that someone was active before Thatcher came into office (e.g. Hayek, Friedman) or that an organisation was founded before Thatcher came into office (e.g. Mont Pelerin Society, IEA) is irrelevant to whether they were involved in the movement. The template isn't about 'organisations started by Thatcher' or anything similar. It is connecting together articles about people, organisations, and movements important to the development and execution of Thatcherism. The MPS and IEA were both very active in the era in advising Thatcher and developing her ideas, as the literature shows, whilst Hayek and Friedman were also key advisers to Thatcher when she was in office (Hayek more frequently than Friedman, for obvious reasons). If the result is that the literature consistently describes them as being hugely important to Thatcherism (I can't run a full check right now, but this BBC article, this obituary of Friedman should be a start). Thus their inclusion.

I do, however, accept the deletion of, for example, Enoch Powell. He may have shared economic theories with Thatcher before she came to office, but, by the time she was in office, he was a loony MP in Northern Ireland that attacked Thatcher on a number of counts, particularly her foreign policy. As such, whilst sometimes described as 'proto-Thatcherite', I'm sure the literature doesn't connect him to closely to Thatcherism itself. Bastin 12:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It might not be a bad idea to include a specific section of influences on Thatcherism, though, particularly individuals. Broad economic/social movements which were influential as "proto-Thatcherism" probably wouldn't benefit from the template. John Carter (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, totally with John. Enoch Powell was a fascist MP who disliked Thatcher (possibly because of her "feminism") but he should be an influence not a direct Thatcherite. However, David Cameron should be on the Thatcherism template because he is 'the Thatcherite in Blairite clothing' and he has admitted that he is a fanatic of Margaret Thatcher. Perhaps 'liberal nationalism' should be mentioned in Thatcherism template since Thatcher was a supporter of the Matriarchy and was a figurehead of British patriotism. The point that was made to counteract The Twelfth Doctor makes sense however, Thatcher was not xenophobic (perhaps a convict of 'sly racism') but she was a nationalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.70.249 (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Find proof that goes against what I have said. William Hague was a big supporter of Thatcher, and so is David Cameron. Margot James temporarily left the Conservative Party and voted Labour when the Conservatives ousted out Margaret Thatcher in 1990 (she is the only woman Thatcherite- no wonder because James is an antifeminist). As I said, I met John Bercow who porfessed to be a big supporter of Thatcher in his youth. Leon Brittan was a Thatcherite and Ronald Reagan was Thatcher's closest friend.

I reinstated Powell. Thatcher acknowledged her debt to Powell's economic thinking in her memoirs ("Enoch's insight into the cause of inflation was of supreme importance", The Path to Power (1995), p. 141) and she told Powell's biographer Simon Heffer that the two greatest influences on her as Conservative leader had been Powell and Keith Joseph (Simon Heffer, Like the Roman: The Life of Enoch Powell (1998), p. 958). Charles Moore says Powell was "the man who, many believe, cleared the intellectual path for what came to be called Thatcherism" (Margaret Thatcher. The Authorized Biography, Volume One: Not For Turning (2013), p. 69). Camilla Schofield has written: "There is no doubt that Powellism helped to produce Thatcherism" (Enoch Powell and the Making of Postcolonial Britain (2013), p. 330).--Coningsby (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]