Talk:Theresa May/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hatnote to Teresa May

The hatnote at the top to Teresa May may (given the prominence this article will be attaining) direct high levels of traffic towards a poorly-sourced BLP stub. Maybe replace with a hatnote to a disambiguation page? Hmm. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa May. I suspect both Mays will get a bit more attention now. Carcharoth (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It would be contrary to normal Wikipedia practice to create a disambiguation page where we only have 2 articles and one is clearly the primary meaning. However, although the glamour model survived a previous deletion discussion, it might be worth looking again at whether she is notable. Also, now that she is about to become PM, her husband is likely to get more attention, does he now become notable? PatGallacher (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

PatGallacher has nominated the Teresa May article for deletion, and other editors can comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa May (2nd nomination) Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good question. Philip May was created by Gareth E. Kegg on 8 July 2016: "Created over redirect. Wait until September to AfD.". Might be worth looking at that AfD now... Carcharoth (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome of the deletion discussion, please don't edit war over the hatnote. This is the mini-edit war over the hatnote: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. That last removal of the hatnote was done as part of a larger edit and has stuck. Probably best to leave it at that. Carcharoth (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• At the AfD, editors agreed to avoid a hatnote on the Article page here with twodabs at Teresa May.  Although this as far as I know solves the problems, an editor at Teresa May wants to find another solution.  He doesn't agree that editors at the AfD and here are satisfied with the twodabs solution.  After multiple reverts, it doesn't hurt to ask here.  Is there an objection to restoring the hatnote for Teresa May?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• This issue is still not resolved.  First of all, the hatnote for "Teresa May" was removed (without discussion here), so I restored the twodabs.  Now a new objection is that "Teresa May" doesn't need to be a dab page for editors who type in "Teresa May", because we have a page called "Teresa May (disambiguation)".  But this page is an unused page that redirects to "Theresa May (disambiguation)".  Unscintillating (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• I placed a speedy deletion tag on Teresa May (disambiguation) and that page was deleted.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• A new objection was raised that the twodabs page was a duplicate of Theresa May (disambiguation), but this makes no more sense than did pointing to Teresa May (disambiguation) as a duplicate, as there is still no path for a reader typing "Teresa May" to read the article on "Teresa May".  Now this editor has posted below, so maybe there will finally be some discussion here.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

IMO, I don't see that the discussion at the AfD established a clear consensus about twodabs at Teresa May (at the very least it was not mentioned in the closing summary). In any case, the situation has changed significantly since that AfD in that the article on the actress, which was deleted in that AfD has been recreated and is apparently stable. Second, the stronger consensus at that time appears to be that there is significant confusion between spelling Teresa vs. Theresa. As there is already an existing disambiguation page at Theresa May (disambiguation) there is no reason whatsoever to have a separate disambiguation page for easily confused spellings. Also, @Unscintillating:, your comment there is still no path for a reader typing "Teresa May" to read the article on "Teresa May" is makes little sense to me. A reader searching for "Teresa May" arrive at the article on the PM and anyone with a half an ounce of brain matter can follow the hatnote there leading to Theresa May (disambiguation). older ≠ wiser 15:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• The closer addressed the issue of the dab page by changing it to a redirect after closing the AfD as delete.  Not only that, User:Bkonrad was the first editor to edit the new twodabs solution, [1], so Bkonrad is part of the consensus for twodabs.  The latest proposal has the problems (1) that a reader typing in "Teresa May" would need two more clicks to get to the article on "Teresa May", and (2) the name "Teresa May" is not in the hatnote at "Theresa May".  Unscintillating (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• User:KaisaL summed up the options at the AfD:

  I think it [a hatnote to Teresa May (actress)] would be necessary if Teresa May redirects to Theresa May. The only other options would be a hard disambiguation page between the two at Teresa May instead, or keeping that directed to the porn actress. If this is kept, those are the three options really, you can't redirect someone with an article's name to somebody else and not mention them anywhere, as you're essentially orphaning them in our search. KaisaL (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  I'm inclined to think that there is now a fourth option of a redirect at "Teresa May" to "Theresa May (disambiguation)", but none of these four options are being discussed.  There are two variations for "keeping that directed to the porn actress", those being (3a) redirect of "Teresa May" to "Teresa May (actress)", and (3b) retaining the "Teresa May" article in place.  (3b) is the default case as this was the case starting on 2009-07-01, so has been the case for 7.5 years on Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Four editors at the AfD explicitly supported turning "Teresa May" into a dab page, and one of the four did so on 2016-07-13, after which the issue mostly settled down at the discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The result of the AfD on 22 July was delete. My edit to the page was on 13 of July and was rendered moot by the outcome of the AfD. Subsequent recreation of the actress's article essentially renders any sidebar observations made in the AfD as perhaps worth reconsidering, but in no way determinative.

FWIW, I'd be perfectly fine with having the actress article at "Teresa May" with a hatnote to the PM (and keeping the current Theresa May (disambiguation) page as is with the corollary hatnote at the PM article as the only x-ref. In no case do I support having a second disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 23:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

No, now that the article has been re-created, the structural issues that led to the twodabs solution are in place, and the situation while the article was deleted carries no weight because that situation no longer exists.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

A second disambiguation page is not a problem because we wouldn't duplicate pages.  Restoring the article to where it was for 7 years is what I called (3b) above.  I'd slightly prefer a redirect from Teresa May to the current article (3a) because there are now two edit histories.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Note that a new book was released a week ago that reveals a dramatic role for Teresa May in the career of the PM.  See the Further reading section at Teresa May (actress).  Unscintillating (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• This new material undermines the sensitivity that was applied in steering readers away from seeing for even a moment the article on Teresa.  However, the twodabs is a good solution, four editors explicitly supported the twodabs solution at the AfD, and the twodabs remains the default solution.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that the situation is not nearly as clear as you seem to think. I'd suggest a new move proposal or an RfC to more clearly establish what current consensus is. older ≠ wiser 23:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you agree to try (3a), which is to redirect "Teresa May" to "Teresa May (actress)" and add a hatnote at "Teresa May (actress)"?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

No. If the actress is primary for that spelling, the article should be moved. older ≠ wiser 01:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Given the two edit histories, that move is more like a 100% merge with attribution than a page move.  I'm fine moving forward with that discussion, but the possibility of a new discussion does not change the existing consensus.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree there ever was clear consensus about a two dab scenario. Maybe there was, but the multiple discussions in various venues makes it quite unclear. And there certainly was no consensus to have multiple disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 03:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Four editors explicitly agreed to the twodabs solution at the AfD.  An admin at [2] on 30 January 2017 stated, "I agree with making it a dab page and leaving Teresa May (actress) with all its history in place."  So that is five editors, and if you include me, that is six.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

And you're mining yet another venue where various opinions were expressed. The situation has shifted in multiple ways since most of those discussions. I'm sure you can cherry pick various comments, but given the shifting ground I have no confidence that any of the editors would have precisely the same positions now. There is now another disambiguation page that didn't figure into previous discussions as far as I can see. It is silly to have multiple disambiguation pages covering the same content. older ≠ wiser 00:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Your post claims that "various opinions were expressed" but provides no evidence.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Uh huh. This is going nowhere and I have neither the interest or patience to shift through the many discussions across multiple forums where participants may have addressed the situation at that time in one way, but it is very difficult to keep straight precisely what the situation was at any given point or even what the sequence of events was. I can't even tell just what it is you are arguing for at this point either. My position remains that there should not be multiple disambiguation pages covering the same content. I'd support moving the actress' article, but that would likely need a separate discussion. older ≠ wiser 01:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• User:Bkonrad left the discussion here stating that he didn't have the patience or interest to understand the issues.  However, he was fully ready and able to resume edit warring when I attempted to restore the twodabs solution.  The twodabs solution is explicitly supported by six editors.  If we include Bkonrad in that consensus, given his role in editing the twodabs article, that is seven editors.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Presumptuous of you to assume I left the discussion here. I merely observed that it was going nowhere as you continue to repeat yourself claiming some sort of consensus exists to have two separate disambiguation pages, but I do not see any editor explicitly supporting multiple pages other than yourself. And if you want to make accusations of edit eating, look in the mirror. You've been reverted by at least three other editors without anyone expressing support for what you're doing (at least not since the recent spate of reverts). older ≠ wiser 16:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There are only two editors who want to discuss the current issue, so I have reason to presume that the other editors who have recently opposed restoration of Teresa May (actress) in conjunction with the related page at Teresa May, have figured out the situation.  They are welcome to join the discussion.  At this point, this discussion is about User:Bkonrad, who continues to hold up restoration of the articles on Teresa May (actress)/Teresa May without compelling reasons and against an explicit six-editor consensus.  Including with the involvement of other editors, this has now been going on since 29 January 2017.  Fixing the immediate problem does not stop Bkonrad from building a new consensus going forward.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but your supposed six-editor consensus is a complete fabrication. No one other than yourself has explicitly supported having redundant disambiguation pages at both Teresa May and Theresa May (disambiguation). At least three editors have reverted you in your efforts. older ≠ wiser 18:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

"Twodabs" means a disambiguation page only disambiguating two topics, see WP:TWODABS, not a "redundant disambiguation page".  The six-editor consensus is for a twodabs solution at Teresa May.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

And this results in a redundant disambiguation page, which those six supporters you count were likely unaware of. The situation has shifted multiple times as the various discussions have progressed. It is extremely misleading to take editor's comments out of context. older ≠ wiser 19:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No, the situation has not "shifted".  At the AfD, four editors supported the move of "Teresa May" to "Teresa May (actress)", placing a twodabs solution at "Teresa May".  This was done, and both at the AfD and in the discussion above, the issue settled down, until the target was deleted.  I restored the "Teresa May (actress)" article and the twodabs on 29 January 2017, and the administrator User:Anachronist agreed as quoted above with the twodabs.  Since then, editors have been unable to provide reasonable justification for why they refuse to allow our readers a reasonable path after typing in "Teresa May" to read the article at "Teresa May (actress)".  You've proposed 100% merging the article at "Teresa May (actress)" back to "Teresa May", which is one of the five known approaches for going forward, and is fine, but you've gained no support for that move, and there is no justification for delaying restoration of Teresa May (actress)/Teresa May based on a possible new consensus, when we currently have a solid consensus for the twodabs solution.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• I've posted an RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 23.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Response to Muslim ban

The section on her response to the muslim ban seems very one-sided. This may be because the majority of RS are against her on this, but surely we can find one supportive quote? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Absolutelypuremilk: I agree that May's response to the controversy and supporters of her initial response should be mentioned in the section — I will note, however, that we don't need to be equal-sided with this section per WP:FALSEBALANCE; if a majority of RS are against her on this topic, that ought to be reflected in the structure of that particular section -- and we must not pander to the minority's view, as to give a false equivalence in perspectives. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not arguing for an equivalence here, just that there should be at least one quote on her side. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably should aim for equivalence in the treatment of the state visit (polls suggest that however unpopular Trump might be with the British public, a majority actually favour the visit and I don't think her popularity has been significantly dented yet). More to the point, this section needs merging with the earlier paragraph about the state visit and emphasis should be on what May did (speech, delayed and muted criticism of Trump, confirmed state visit) and not on commentator's opinions of Trump. Dtellett (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that the section title be changed from Response to Donald Trump's Muslim ban to increase neutrality. Per WP:POVNAMING, biased names should only be used if they have become the common name. However, this is not the case in this situation, with mainstream media simply usually refering to it as a travel ban [3][4][5][6]. As such I suggest this section be renamed to something more neutral such as Response to President Trump's travel ban from Muslim-majority countries. --FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this content should be moved to Premiership of Theresa May. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with this and the recent attempt at removal: the petition and state visit speculation is more relevant to her Premiership than her person. It's also already referenced in the main section. Happy with it being called a "Muslim ban", with the quotes, for the purposes of the article, per WP:COMMONNAME as used in the predominantly UK WP:RS focused on May (technically it isn't a Muslim ban, but the "bedroom tax" isn't a tax either). The number of the Executive Order is probably unintelligible to anyone outside the US, and most people in it. Dtellett (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The original material could be moved to Premiership of Theresa May, but it should still be summarized in the main article (i.e. this article) with at least one sentence, and is equally relevant to her person. --Tataral (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Second female Prime Minister?

I must question the inclusion of the statement that May is the UK's second female Prime Minister in the very opening paragraph of the article. Had she been the first female Prime Minister, then I think the case for inclusion would be clear-cut, but surely the same logic cannot so easily be applied to the second. If we include the second female, must we also include the third? Where do we draw the line? If there are no serious objections, then I would like to remove this statement from the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Second woman out of 55(?) UK PMs. I think that's worth putting in the lede. Tigerboy1966  08:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – Concur with Tigerboy1966; also, I'd say a good majority of the media outlets on May becoming PM in July 2016 had focused on her becoming the second woman PM in the United Kingdom, which demonstrates coverage and significance. I'm unsure as to where we draw the line, but this isn't about the third, fourth or fifth woman PM in UK -- it's about the second. The second in at least 50 PMs. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

General Election

I'm sure there'll be plenty to discuss as this develops. First point: I don't believe that opposition leaders saying they welcome an election (regardless of what they actually feel; nobody's going to admit they're caught on the hop and lose seats) counts as them having "given support for the election move" except in the narrow technical sense they won't dare vote against it. The accusations of opportunism could possibly stay in there, and could possibly be balanced by positive commentary suggesting it's good for her to get a personal mandate, strengthen Brexit negotiating position etc (there will be some). Interested in thoughts on how best to do this (and there seems to have been some back and forth editing on that bit already) but a rival leader saying they're looking forward to an election isn't the endorsement of Theresa May's preference for holding it asap that the current text implies Dtellett (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Good point about saying there will be a lot to discuss as news of the General Election develops - I am sure I have seen templates that say "article in the news" so could such a template go here? It is in the category "Wikipedia in the news articles". Carltonio (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

A similar section at Premiership of Theresa May#2017 general election is already being developed along those lines. -- de Facto (talk). 20:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Theresa May. 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/20100822013355/http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=413 to http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=413

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 17:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2017

Theresa Mary May (née Brasier; born 1 October 1956 as Terry May) is a British politician who has served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom since 2016. She has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Maidenhead since 1997 and Leader of the Conservative Party since July 2016. She is the second female Prime Minister and Conservative leader after Margaret Thatcher. Captain.awesome1234 (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 13:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

U-turns

The Independent and the Financial Times have accused May of many u-turns. One example given is that May argued for remaining during the Brexit campaign and May alleged Brexit would endanger "Britain’s future. Our influence around the world. Our security. And our prosperity". The Independent considers May, "the very face of Brexit. In her leadership campaign May promised requiring companies to put workers representatives onto boards of directors but later reversed this. May frequently stated she would not hold a general election and maintained that would endanger stability but she later called an election. During May's first complete budget the chancellor announced a tax rise for self employed people. This broke a manifesto committment and was reversed within days". The article then went on to list other U-turns they say she has made. The Financial Times said that "for a prime minister who has promised to offer strong and stable leadership, Theresa May has a record of rapid U-turns". This article then gave an example of a policy that was called a "dementia tax" by opponents, where those who needed care in their home would have to pay for it unless their assets (including their home) were worth less than £100,000. However, May has said that her change in policy over the "dementia tax" was not a U-turn, and said she is being honest.

The section above has become controversial. I don't think it's just a csse of everyone including May sometimes changing their mind. The Independent wrote, "But in her ten months as Prime Minister, Ms May has developed a reputation for quickly U-turning on policies." [7] The Independent is reliable. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the section as it stood as of 19:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC), but I am open to it being reinserted with consensus. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Please restore -I don't think the article could be deemed encyclopaedic if it doesn't reference the u-turns. The FT is not noted for its anti-Tory claims. However the quality of the writing in the section could be considerably improved. JRPG (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not open to it being restored until the writing quality is improved, especially considering how close we are to an election. It would make me mildly nauseous if our work at her unduly affected the democratic process. Emir of Wikipedia (talk)

I'm of the view that the inclusion of such a section is recentist and inherently NPOV on part of the original editor who added it: this is no more notable than if any other politician did so, and in no instance has there actually been a section literally entitled "U-turns". The appropriate section for this, if any, is that for the 2017 general election; otherwise, it's far more appropriate for the main election article (as the recent focus on U-turns pertains less so to May herself than to the issues in the manifesto). Mélencron 21:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The original section is poorly written and too long. Reduce the length and charges of recentism and wp:undue go. The election U-turn does need to go back particularly as its a key change. Emir I think we may be overstating our role in history :) but I too want a better and fair article. I can give it a bash tomorrow unless someone has done it first. Regards JRPG (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

There has actually been a sectioned literally entitled "U-turns" which I removed with this edit. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Emir, yes, I did see that & that's what I thought was "poorly written and too long." Regards JRPG (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Too wordy and promotional language

All you need to say is she "has been" PM, you don't need to say she "has served as" PM. That language is too promotional. 64.251.59.210 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Brexit, Trump & Mayhem

Can someone add in some historical context to what is going on with polling, and what happened in each case?

Are they linked?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Prison funding and policy

I'm sorry to have to say that his article reads like a very long puff for the election of Theresa May.

Where, for example, is there anything whatsoever about the drastic cuts to prison funding which were made in her 5 year tenancy of the Home Office? Which, as is all to obvious, to those of every political persuasion, has resulted in many prisons becoming out of control. Documentaries after documentary shows this to be true.

Try doing a word search on 'prison' in the 'Home Secretary' section. The word itself does not appear once.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Home Secretary directly responsible for decisions made concerning prison funding and policy?

So there's zilch about prisons, but we do have very useful things like a picture of a drug that Theresa May banned. *rolls eyes* Boscaswell talk 13:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It reads like a long promotional piece. I presume it is being constantly edited by parties who want to have her portrayed in a good light.Zzubnik (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one has actually added anything on prison funding, so maybe we should try to correct the article and include something on prison funding rather than blame editors for removing something that never existed. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

typo in this sentence

Her father in a car accident in 1981 and her mother of multiple sclerosis the following year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.41.3.21 (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I have fixed this now. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation of names

I think all biographies should write out the pronunciation of the names using the International Phonetic Alphabet. That will help users to read the pronunciation of the names even when a sound-file is present in the article. The reader's computer may lack speakers. Far from all readers are familiar with English names, which may be pronounced differently in the reader's language. Even pronunciation of English names spelled indentically may differ in English. Also, non-native speakers may have a harder time to differentiate between similar sounds. --Bensin (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This was previously discussed here Talk:Theresa May/Archive 2#Pronunciation, though apparently the IPA pronunciation that was present at the time has since been partially removed and the rest hidden in a footnote. clpo13_(talk) 22:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it was completely removed during that discussion and partially added back more recently. However, I agree that it needs to be clarified, at the very least, whether Theresa has an s sound or a z sound at the end, since those are both common in English. Also see this edit for the possibility of an infobox parameter. clpo13_(talk) 23:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Just the fact that a minor confusion followed (see the archive link above) focusing on exactly how the name is pronounced speaks to the need of it. Not to mention that on top of the four alternatives mentioned in that discussion, I've observed the initial syllable pronounced with a voiceless dental fricative (θ) on several occasions, making the possible combinations tally up to at least eight. As it is now, nobody can consult Wikipedia for how to say it correctly. Is anyone still opposing adding the IPA for the full name? --Bensin (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I added it in this edit using the IPA from the archived discussion. --Bensin (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This sounds more like a thing which could discussed at Wikipedia: Village pump (proposals) rather than something specific to this article. Vorbee (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vorbee: The Manual of Style part about pronunciation in the lead suggests adding IPA ("Transcriptions are frequently placed immediately after the head words of the article in dictionary format") which I think is good. But I would personally prefer it if Manual of Style spelled out clearly that IPA should always be included (for the reasons I stated above and other reasons mentioned by others in the archived discussion). --Bensin (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Plagiarism - compare to previous stories...

Can someone add in a new section on the recent Tory party conference speech?

Clear plagiarism from the West Wing.

The story is following the usual pattern of denial, and then at some point, the speech writer will admit lifting sections from the West Wing.

Can someone compare and contrast former stories of plagiarism - Joe Biden/Neil Kinnock, Barack Obama/Deval Patrick, Melania Trump/Michelle Obama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Of all the things that went wrong with that speech, lifting a cliche from the West Wing has got to be the least notable. Definitely no need for a comparison with other speeches: that's what newspapers and blog articles specifically on the speech are for. Dtellett (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Infobox portrait

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

---

#1
#2
I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on whether to use portrait #1, which is the non-cropped version, or the second one, which is cropped and zoomed in, and is also the current one being used in the article. However, I should note that portrait #1 has a lower resolution than portrait #2, although that isn't something that's easily noticeable. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Use Portrait #1 - Personally, I think the cropped one looks absolutely horrible, the way it's all zoomed in on her face just makes it a very bad portrait. The full official portrait is the way to go. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Use Portrait #1 - I think this is a situation where WP:BOLD applies. Cjhard (talk) 09:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Portrait #1 - the WP:IMAGE guidance is not favorable on cropping, plus the precedent I have seen in a couple places discussion for American politicians was a strong favoring of using the official photo without edits. Markbassett (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Portrait #1 #2 is bad, and worse in many respects. #2 removes a lot of relevant content just to show a more blown up look at her face. North8000 (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
• Portrait #1 - agree with the above comments. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
• Portrait #1 Also agree. Perhaps time for a WP:SNOWCLOSE. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
• Portrait 1 (Summoned by bot) Lower res is not really noticable, and I find #2 not as flattering. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
• Portrait #1 because it does not focus as much on expression and details, and therefore is obviously more neutral. -The Gnome (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• #1 is a better picture. Higher quality.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Portrait #1 The photograph was clearly taken to be shown at full frame, cropping it is counterproductive to the quality of the image. This seems to be the overwhelming response, but really the resolution is not noticeable at this tiny thumbnail size. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) -  12:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Portrait #1 - I typically prefer a cropped/zoomed in version for infoboxes but in this case, #2 just seems off and disproportionate. Meatsgains (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• Portrait #1 - this full frame depicts a stately appearance representative of her position in government. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:01, 24 September 2017 (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.

May and Trotsky's sidepiece?

This seems notable and probably should be mentioned in the article. At the Tory party coughing-and-spluttering conference, May wore a bracelet of Frida Kahlo (literally Leon Trotsky's sidepiece after he had been expelled to Mexico for his terrorist activities against the Soviet Union). This story has been covered in the mainstream press [8][9][10] Although it seems likely that Trotsky became some kind of covert British agent himself, out to sabotage Stalin and the Soviet Union, it is still odd for a leader of an ultra-capitalist ultra-imperialist party to openly associate with Trotskyist-connected symbolism?? Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it should be mentioned. Perhaps the most interesting thing in the whole speech? It didn't even fall off. Even covered by Vanity Fair and Elle as well as The Express. Is it The Two Teresas? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

This in no way seems notable enough for this article. Maybe try starting up Fashion sense of Theresa May which might be more suitable. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, your idea has legs, I feel. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC) (... not literally, obviously.)

Type one diabetes

This article says that May was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus of Type One in November 2012. Would it not be a simpler wording to say that she was diagnosed with Diabetes mellitus type 1 in 2012? I guess that what I am saying is that "diabetes mellitus of Type One" sounds a funny expression. Indeed, I do not recall the Wikipedia article on diabetes mellitus using this expression. Vorbee (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Theresa May. 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/20130703185632/http://www.ruconservative.com/friends/ to http://www.ruconservative.com/friends/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 04:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Theresa May. 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/20170923002029/http://www.daytondailynews.com/business/the-latest-brexit-chief-welcomes-constructive-speech/eKv8542YSNWjBQCDclPX2M/ to http://www.daytondailynews.com/business/the-latest-brexit-chief-welcomes-constructive-speech/eKv8542YSNWjBQCDclPX2M/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 14:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please remove Damian Green as first sec of state in info box as he has been sacked. Source is linked on the first sec of state article.

Sorry that I cannot work out how to make this request properly on mobile. Thank you, 86.158.128.176 (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks user:Martinevans123 for moving the request. I suppose I am still trying to figure out how to use WP correctly.

Thanks again,

86.158.128.176 (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I looked over at First Secretary of State and it does say: "There is no current holder of this office, as Damian Green resigned on 20th December 2017." But, unfortunately, the current source in the table there (Green's own Parliament page does not seem to support that statement. So I'm not sure we can remove him this article infobox yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi user:Martinevans123, this is the same person as the IP above on another device. I agree, the parliament source does not show this clearly. However, the guardian is cited on the Damian Green article here and the BBC agree here, as well as the telegraph here

Apologies if I have not formatted these correctly. Are they enough? Thank you for all your help,

86.158.128.176 (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that looks quite convincing. I'll remove it. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC) p.s. many thanks for the sources which can be used at First Secretary of State

Thank you, I also added the guardian source at First Secretary of State, I hope that is okay to support his having resigned there too.

86.158.128.176 (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Um yes, but all sources say "he was sacked". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

True, now I am just getting confused. 86.158.128.176 (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems the euphemistic phrase "forced to resign" is preferred, so you're not the only one. I urge you to create an account, as you'd obviously make a great editor. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Hi user:Martinevans123, I have created an account as you suggested. Just letting you know that user:Akuindo has reverted the change s you made. I know this now must be discussed, so Aquindo, are you okay restoring this given the sources here, or do you disagree with them? Thank you both. GreyGreenWhy (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Akuindo, perhaps you could explain your three edits to this article as you neglected to leave any edit summary. And I'd advise you to read Help:Edit summary as soon as you can. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

see the article David Cameron. David is PM (2010-16) but Nick Clegg is DPM (2010-15) nah Theresa May is PM (2016-inc) and Damian Green is FS (2017 only). problem tah????

Your addition of "(2017)" seems to clarify it. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thanks user:Akuindo, that makes sense. Sorry for botthering you and thank you for the explanation. GreyGreenWhy (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2018

infobox add 'Deputy' tag to David Lidington 176.24.32.204 (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Added, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Assuming good faith, but why did you do this change? David Lidington is not the deputy. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't do it as a prank. I did this change because his article says quite plainly that he is "de facto Deputy Prime Minister". If there is good reason why this doesn't count, then please could you revert and explain here? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to note that consensus on another article Talk:Prime Minister of the United Kingdom/Archive 3#Prime Minister's Deputy was that she does not have a "Deputy Prime Minister". MilborneOne (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the link. I now see there is another discussion at David Lidington#De facto deputy prime minister. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That was added by a now blocked account. I attempted a discussion at Talk:David Lidington#De facto deputy prime minister, but they reverted back to there version. One writers opinion of Lidington does not mean he is the de facto DPM. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked a number of sockpuppets of, probably, User:Thepoliticsexpert, who are in favour of this change. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2018

Add that Theresa May is a Christian - seems kinda obvious but appears missing. CarcussCartel (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This is already covered in the "Personal life" subsection. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox portrait

Why does the infobox portrait appear grainy/blurred on my device? Can this be fixed in any way? Uhooep (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Immigration Policy Effects

The revision of my edit on the effect of May's "hostile" immigration policy appears to be an attempt to sanitize the entry. It is apparently OK to describe the name of the policy but not its effect. All my edit was referenced from reliable sources (well respected national British newspapers). Given the topic my thought is that this is a "whitewash". Wickifrank (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

This was sourced reliably, but not written in a neutral tone. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

So I seek input on what might be accepted as a "neutral tone". Perhaps "The policy led to illegal deportations and illegal exile of legal residents, illegal separation of families, illegal deprivation of income and health care for life threatening conditions, homelessness and destitution" If this is not neutral enough could alternatives be suggested.?Wickifrank (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Full title

I've seen other pages on British subjects have a style section that tells you what their official titles are and how they are addressed. Any chance of getting something similar for the Prime Minister? I'm guessing she holds honors or titles, but can't find out either way. 47.139.8.118 (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

British or English?

I thought May was British, born in Britain, with British nationality, the leader of a British political party, and the Prime Minister of Britain (well UK, anyway). But apparently to call her "British" (like e.g. Winston Churchill), is a grammatical error? What's to be gained by describing her as "English" exactly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

You can be English and British at the same time, but as a UK politician it may be better to call her British unless you say English-born politician. MilborneOne (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

English is more specific, and so could be argued to be more accurate. But I'm surprised there is not a standard agreed for the articles for all sitting UK MPs - what do the other 649 have? After all, there is currently no English Parliament. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the problem is mixing up two simiar facta she is both an English Politican (as in somebody born in England who is a politican) and a British politician (somebody who is a politican at a national level, rather than a councillor or such like) MilborneOne (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Ooh, that rings a bell. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Not a great comparison really. She is not an English separatist. --Hazhk (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Describing her as "English" suggests that she might be. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Clean up the grammar

The opening section contains the sentence "becoming the second female Prime Minister after Margaret Thatcher."

Surely this should be "becoming the second female Prime Minister, after Margaret Thatcher." or even better "becoming the second female Prime Minister, following Margaret Thatcher."

If she was the "second female Prime Minister after Margaret Thatcher" she would be the third female PM.

82.110.160.189 (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Y done ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2018

Remove edit by OwenBlacker adding quote from John Crace [3] article - "in what has been described (in retrospect) as "two of the most catastrophic political decisions in living memory"," - just because something 'has been described as' does not mean that it is the case, especially as the quote in question seems biased. 92.233.20.75 (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean this entire edit? It seems perfectly reasonably to me and a real improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: change to "in what some have described (in retrospect) as "two of the most catastrophic political decisions in living memory"" --Danski454 (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively, move to bottom of paragraph as "some have described these actions as "two of the most catastrophic political decisions in living memory"" --Danski454 (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: made proposed alternative change: move to bottom of paragraph as "Some have described triggering Article 50 and the snap election as "two of the most catastrophic political decisions in living memory."" Danski454 (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

How is this comment remotly appropriate. It's so blatently partisan. The some in question is the Guardian sketchwriter - a publication and a journalist both opposed to the Tories and to Brexit. How can you argue it to be 'reasonable', other than "I agree". Or are you arguing that the Jeremy Corbyn ought to have what 'some', in say the Daily Telegraph, have said about him, or what 'some' on CNN or in the New York Times, have said about Donald Trump? Alexsau1991 (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said when I undid your removal of the material, there could be a case to reframe it as "A Guardian editorial described" rather than "some have described". But a change of frame rather than removing the material altogether. It's not really appropriate to avoid including commentary just because it's of unsurprising provenance. I hope that the latter isn't what you're arguing? Personally I wouldn't even advocate honing in on the individual source, as it's a sentiment that more reliable sources could be provided to support the more general phrasing of the status quo before your edits. Ralbegen (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The framing is not the issue here, it's the blatantly partisan nature of what you describe perfectly commentary. The rest of the content in this article's introduction is entirely factual biographical information, only that line introduces a partisan opinion on the subject. The status quo of course was, until not long ago, just the biographical information - as it should remain. Finding other reliable sources with that sentiment is not hard, nor is finding reliable sources with differing sentiment; it is politics, after all. And if it merits inclusion, along with contrary commentary for balance, then it ought to be in the appropriate part of the article, where the premiership is discussed. Alexsau1991 (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2018

2001:56A:72AE:5100:E141:D0CC:8837:B047 (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

de facto Deputy again

Hello User:JLo-Watson, I wanted to open a discussion about David Lidington as Theresa May's "de facto Deputy PM". There are previous brief discussions of this in the archives here, at Talk:Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and at Talk:David Lidington#De facto deputy prime minister, where discussion is confused by sock puppets.

It is clear that Lidington is not actually Deputy PM, as he occupies neither the office First Secretary of State or Deputy Prime Minister. I believe the question is whether being the Minister for the Cabinet Office who has stood in for the PM at PMQs is sufficient to make him a de facto Deputy PM. I think User:ChieftanTartarus, User:Emir of Wikipedia, User:MilborneOne and User:Martinevans123 have previously expressed views on this.

Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Unless we have a source that clearly describes him as "Deputy PM", I don't really see why he needs to be labelled as such. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

There are some sources that use the phrase: The Guardian, the Gibraltar Chronicle, the New European, Bloomberg, the Telegraph, as well as a number of local news publications. I think there's enough RS material to describe Lidington as de facto deputy PM. Ralbegen (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the comment left above. Widely described as de-Facto deputy PM and First Secretary. Thornberry shadows Lidington, and Lidington also holds Green's old post as Minister for the Cabinet Office which is the main role of deputising for the PM and ensuring the Cabinet Office in order even though he wasn't given a largely ceremonial title. So should remain as de-facto and stay there. 2A00:23C5:BD26:9E00:F5E0:E48E:5D27:4749 (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No objections. Perhaps, as well as several of the supporting sources, might it help many readers if de facto was linked? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I think linking "de facto" would be useful! Ralbegen (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, agree with Martin per comments above. JLo-Watson (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Nasty Party

It is good to see that May's use of the term "Nasty Party" is in this article. Vorbee (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

an or /εI/: Ideologically, she identifies herself as "a" (and not an) one-nation conservative.

wong, an is the correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:411B:7100:28D9:6C65:A4E9:39E (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah right, it's wong. Thanks four putting us write their. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2018

Section: Personal Life Change "May has been married to Philip May, an investment banker currently employed by Capital International" to "May has been married to Philip May, an investment relationship manager currently employed by Capital International"

Reason: there are no investment bankers at Capital International. His job is as an investment relationship manager, a drastically different job. Fpatten1989 (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, that is consistent with the content at Philip May, although that's wholly unsourced at that article. Note the piped link there is to investment relationship manager. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done and sourced. I didn't do any piping for investment relationship manager, seems like a good WP:REDLINK. A2soup (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2018

Theheekfkd (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Theresa May was in the shadow cabinet form until July 2016 and has overtook the role of prime minister of Phillip Hamond the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This mistake has been unrecognized by the UK government and UK locals. Since Camerons resignation Brexit was established.Some people view Brexit as postivie but others view it as negative due to price of products rising up A us leaving trades with the US and other members of the EU

Please provide a source for your claim. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Is this a request? It doesn't make any sense. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Dancing Queen

Why nothing about her dancing?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Because it is not noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

It takes "cringeworthy" to a whole new level. But it probably does beat running through fields of wheat. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED WP:NPOV WP:AESTHETIC.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

And just in case you had tried to forget... [11] and [12] Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

No one will ever forget. These dances will be as longlasting as the Maypole. Historians are still talking about Nero's fiddling and Hitler's painting. Long after the UK has faded away (possibly in 2020), these dances will still be remembered as the dying spasm of English imperialism.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Destiny beckons, I feel. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry England may put on a game show, but its fete is sealed by the May poll.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you love me? Do you love me, baby?... You broke my heart.... cos I couldn't dance....:

"Now I can mash the Corbyn (I can mash the Corbyn)

I can do the twist (I can do the May)

Tell me, baby, do you like it like this???" Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

first female British Prime Minister of the 21st century

How is that noteworthy at all? Selecting categories like that is just for the sake of having facts. It's as important as Brazil being the first country in South America to hold the FIFA World Cup this century.--94.134.89.187 (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed that sentence.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

In the news

Theresa May is going to be in the news, with M.P.s voting on her deal to go with Brexit. Perhaps this article should have a tag saying "This person is in the news"?Vorbee (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Update the information about the 15 Jan 2019 vote

The fifth paragraph of the article says that "This agreement is scheduled to be voted on by Parliament on 15 January 2019." Please update to reflect the results of the vote, a rejection of the agreement 432 against to 202 for. One source is the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46885828 Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.212.3.4 (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2019

"In 2003, May was sworn of the Privy Council and appointed Shadow Secretary of State for Transport after Michael Howard's election as Conservative Party and Opposition Leader in November that year."

Please remove "sworn of the Privy Council and". The source for this statement says nothing about "swear", "sworn", "swore", or "privy", and the appearances of "council" are unrelated. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. That source also says "Secretary of State for Transport and the Environment", so I have added this into a piped link. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Style of address

This article is incorrect: she has been The Rt Hon Theresa Mary May MP since 2003 when she joined the Privy Council. See: The Privy Council Office's list of Councillors --86.167.22.36 (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Page move discussion

Hi. You might be interested in this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2019

She resigned today. Change term to end today. Update intro text to reflect end of term. 155.91.64.15 (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• She's resigned today, effective 7 June, which is what the article says. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  Also, her tenure as PM won't end on 7 June, only her leadership of the Conservative party. The election for a successor will begin then.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The text is currently incorrect; it says she will resign as PM on 7 June, with the note already made; she is resigning as leader of the Conservative Party on 7 June but will continue as PM until the Queen appoints her successor, regardless of whether she holds Party office or not. In fact, she was the reverse, Leader of the Conservative Party for 2 days, from 11 July 2016 before she was appointed PM on 13th July. Change it please. 14:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Commas "unnecessary clutter"

(Reference made below to recent edit summaries) It is my considered view that excessive use of punctuation harms written language. The commas in question in these recent edits, unless being used to follow a year number (where they can confirm to the skimming eye that the number is a year number) have no function within the text. I have no knowledge of any "grammar guide" that prescribes the addition of commas in the way being advocated by User:WikiWinters, least of all one that states it to be "universal" preferred usage. My impression is, to the contrary, that this is one of the less admirable features of American style guides. I'm entirely in agreement with User:Martinevans123 on this point. (For comparison, something of the same dispute may have arisen a few hours ago in Donner Party.) Harfarhs (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of these "wiki-commas". I think they should be banished, at least in those articles written in British English. But I gave up arguing over this, somewhat pedantic, matter a while ago. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

See the following Q&A from The Chicago Manual of Style:

Q. Is it proper to put a comma after the year in a date? Example: On April 15, 2014, I filed my taxes on time.

A. Yes—in fact, in Chicago style it is the rule.

Source: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Commas.html?page=6

Now, of course this is an American style guide, but I assumed this rule (or, more accurately, guideline) was universal. However, as I’m no expert on British punctuation standards, I just consulted the University of Oxford Style Guide (source: https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/media_wysiwyg/University%20of%20Oxford%20Style%20Guide.pdf), and it says the following:

Do not use a comma after a time-based adverbial phrase.

Correct: After playing tennis all day she was tired.

Correct: Whenever she went to the cinema she ate popcorn.

Correct: In 2010 the most popular game among children was hopscotch.

Evidently, you are correct. I apologize for the inconvenience I caused. WikiWinters (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Please don't feel you need to apologise, it's important to have frank debate about all subjects. However, this definitely seems to be a style matter. (What I said above about year numbers was stated in the WP MOS at one stage, but more recently seems to have been removed.) It's likely that there will be exceptions, where clarity of meaning requires punctuation where otherwise it wouldn't be used, but they can be identified as they arise. Best wishes to both, Harfarhs (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Section 6.8: Grammar

"The pace and amount of resignations..."

This should obviously be 'number' of resignations. 'Pace' is also not applicable here. Perhaps 'The number and frequency of resignations...' would be better English. 86.137.235.255 (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. WikiWinters (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Why can't you talk about the pace of resignations?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Only because individually they are discrete events that can't happen either quickly or slowly? But then some commentators might wish to describe their apparent haste? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Resignation

This needs to be updated to include her resignation https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48395905 https://news.yahoo.com/theresa-may-resigns-090653622.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/world/europe/theresa-may-resignation.html RealSaddy (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

RealSaddy it is already updated see Theresa May#Resignation--SharabSalam (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

May made her emotional speech about her resignation.

User:Adeobajr you need to sign your comments, as has been said already her announcement is in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

To clarify. She will be resigning as leader of the Conservative party on June 7, 2019. She will remain as Prime Minister until a new leader of the party is chosen, in mid-July 2019. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually we don't know what's going to happen.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

It was announced Live at https://newsupd.com/2019/05/24/brexitdeal-failed-british-pm-may-quit-soon-sources-live-downing-street/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alims1233 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Theresa May as acting Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

As of Friday 6th June 2019, Theresa May is the Acting Prime Minister of the United Kingdom until a new leader is announced on the 22nd July. However she officially stepped down as Leader of the Conservative party on the 6th June 2019.

Please can someone make this edit (Tomdclarke15 (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC))

She remains acting leader until a successor is elected. Just as has happened with each of her predecessors. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe that Theresa May remains the Prime Minister, not acting Prime Minister, despite her resignation as Conservative Party leader. She has not presented her resignation as Prime Minister to the Queen, which is the procedure for a resignation from that office, and has stated that she will do so only when her successor has been selected. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

She still holds the commission. "Acting Prime Minister" isn't a formal title and the term usually means another Cabinet minister who during the absence of the PM due to overseas trips, illness or summer holidays, handles on the spot business. Any resemblance to obscure backbench MPs who is actually a farting alien in a fat suit is purely coincidental. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Just FYI so everyone knows for the future: There is no mechanism for a formal "Acting Prime Minister." You are either Prime Minister or you are not. Another minister may temporarily carry out some of the duties during overseas visits or holidays but there is only ever 1 Prime Minister because they are chosen by the Queen. If the P.M. became incapacitated, the Queen would designate someone as a caretaker Prime Minister (in the interim) but who would be fully Prime Minister, not "acting." The term you want is a caretaker P.M., which May is now. There's also no mechanism for an "Acting Conservative Party Leader." At the moment, there is no leader. Simple as that. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Per the most recent edit from User:‎SamWilliamLee, it doesn't appear to be so simple unfortunately. It does appear to be possible to be acting leader of the conservative party - see press release at ‎https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1137010588436127744/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1137010588436127744&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fuk-politics-48550452. Whilst I know Wikipedia is not a reliable source, this does appear to be in line with the end dates for party leaders at Leader of the Conservative Party (UK)#Leaders of the Party (1922–present). GreyGreenWhy (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Clarify what this acting leader stuff is. Wouldn't it make more sense that she remain party leader & have the resignation take effect upon the selection of her successor? GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The formal way to trigger a leadership contest is via the party leader's resignation. It is common to see the Party Chairman taking over the leadership position in between the leader's resignation and the new leader taking office - the Chairman is known as Acting Leader in this period. In this case, however, from the press release of the 1922 committee, the Party Chairman did not take up leadership, May instead; she is therefore currently still the leader (in an acting capacity) although May's official term as Leader had already ended on 7 June 2019. OliWatson (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

She's definitely still Prime Minister until she either resigns from that role or is sacked, and AFAIK she has done neither. The party leadership is an entirely different matter. -- The Anome (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Either she's still the leader of the Conservative party or she isn't. We can't have it both, in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I think she should still be seen as leader and I don't see why acting leader and leader are contradictory. OliWatson (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay, she is still PM until she resigns. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't allude to any proposition that would suggest she is not PM though. OliWatson (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Still leader of the Conservative Party?

What's in the infobox is confusing. It's saying she's still leader of the Conservative party, while also acting (or interim) leader of the Conservative party. Either she resigned on 7 June 2019, or she didn't. Which is it? GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I reckon this is similar to a caretaker prime minister. Although a PM (not referring to the UK context) is set to leave office, he/she is still caretaker PM until the successor assumes office; that is, when his/her official term ends, he/she is still in office as PM - though as a caretaker. As far as I know, the infobox would normally use the date that the caretaker PM finishes the caretaker period as the end date. I suggest handling this article in the same way plus indicating her acting period below, like this:

Theresa May/Archive 3
Leader of the Conservative Party
In office 11 July 2016 – ? July 2019 Acting: 7 June 2019 – ? July 2019
Deputy	Damian Green David Lidington
Chairman	Sir Patrick McLoughlin Brandon Lewis
Preceded by	David Cameron
Succeeded by	TBD

OliWatson (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article also says "... is a British politician serving as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom since 2016". But the word "acting" appears nowhere in the article text. What is the precedent for using the term "acting" in the infobox? Would it be clearer if it said "Caretaker"? Although perhaps some people might assume she'd got a proper job? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It would be clearer if we indicated that she was party leader 11 July 2016 - 7 June 2019 & leave the 'acting' note as is, underneath it. I tried implementing this, but kept getting reverted. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

She is not a caretaker PM. I just wanted to illustrate precedence in other articles by mentioning caretaker PM. But I still reckon it should be shown that she is still in office of leader even though it is an acting term of office. OliWatson (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

She is 100% still PM, there's no acting PM role. But as leader she is acting and her term as official leader ended with her resignation. The article should therefore state her end date as 7 June.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The article currently says: "May will remain caretaker Prime Minister until a successor is elected by the Conservative Party membership", although without any supporting source. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I have corrected that and added a bit more detail. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok .Not surprised folks may be confused when sources, like the FT, explicitly say: ""UK prime minister to continue in caretaker role as Tory leadership contest kicks off" etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Folks, my concern is with her status as Leader of the Conservative Party, not her position as Prime Minister. Why is the prime ministership being dragged into this discussion? GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

User:OliWatson only suggested a comparison. And is only a very new editor. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Grateful for Martinevans123's clarification. I only wanted to illustrate my point of the fact that May should be seen as the current leader even she is only the acting leader, just like the caretaker PM of other countries that would be considered as the incumbent PM at the time. OliWatson (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Wrong information in one photo

Theresa May not was the first Prime Minister to visit Argentina after the Falklands War, the source indicates was the first to visit the capital city Buenos Aires. The fist one was Tony Blair in 2001.--190.231.219.99 (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Good spot, I've fixed it. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I know The Grauniad says "in a gesture worthy of Basil Fawlty", but Tony didn't make that much of a fist of it, did he? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

I added this article to Category:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, but this edit was reverted because Theresa May is already in the Category:21st-century Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom sub cat. However, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron are all in both Category:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and Category:21st-century Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. Also, all 20th-century PMs are in both Category:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and Category:20th-century Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom.

To be consistent, either all other PMs need to be removed from Category:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom or Theresa May should be added to it. Thanks! --Philip Stevens (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Having check a few equivalent cats, such as that for Presidents of the United States, it looks like all office holders are normally in the main cat as well as relevant sub cats. So I think this page should be added to the main cat. --2A0C:5BC0:40:109E:BD8A:5AFB:42A9:905D (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Designated Incumbent

Some people insist on putting Boris Johnson as "designated incumbent" into the article box(section Successor). This is problematic because nobody has provided any source that supports that Boris Johnson is the designated successor by law.Lurking shadow (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC) User:Ivar the Boneful and User:Willwal are definitely involved in this.Lurking shadow (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Not actually "designated" more "assumed" so it would better just to leave it out until tomorrow rather than worry to much about it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news feed so it will do no harm. MilborneOne (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?q="boris+johnson"+"designate" It's not rocket science. The opening sentence of Boris Johnson's article describes him as such. No one's claiming he's the "designated successor by law", there's no such position in the UK, but he's 100% the presumptive successor to Theresa May. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

What part of the definition of Prime minister-designate are you claiming Johnson doesn't meet, User:Lurking shadow? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The article you are pointing to is lacking appropiate sourcing and could be very well partly original research.Lurking shadow (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, not original research, but all I see is news articles. Considering that the article itself states that these are often loosely using such words... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurking shadow (talk • contribs) 14:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The law is by convention. It can be presumed he is Prime Minister designate, because the Queen appoints the Prime Minister on the advice of the incumbent. It would be a constitutional crisis if either the Queen or Prime Minister did otherwise. Farleysmaster (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2019

Theresa May is no longer the Prime Minster, as of July 24, 2019. Please edit the article to reflect this. Thank you. 2601:547:A00:ADC4:C92E:61ED:5089:88D9 (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Well it's the 24 July right now and she's still the PM! Check back in four hours. Littlemonday (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Not done Nothing changes until around 3pm today (UK time), and I guarantee it won't be slow to be updated at the appropriate time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I LIVE for the tears of the many, many editors who will be too slow and/or unimportant to be THE fancy editors who get to document the moment of handover. Despite hovering over their keyboards, they will have to live the rest of their lives rueing their failures as Wikipedians. I am grateful for the quick work of those for whom this is important, and congratulate them on their superior Wikipedian-ship.2601:204:D502:1837:6871:1E06:4406:96DD (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Re-elected

Theresa May has been re-elected in the 2019 election so her page needs updating. Please change her MP in office status from until 2019 to present in the infobox section.

 Not done seriously. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Theresa May official portrait.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Theresa May official portrait (cropped).jpg
• Theresa May official portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The Conservative MPs can cause snap elections (that will harm their party but change the next parliament and allow Britain to move)

Add relative links with comments.

Appointing advisors

I heard on the Radio Four programme Sunday on July 28 2019 that one of the last things Theresa May did as Prime Minister was to appoint two new government advisors -one dealing with Islamophobia, one dealing with anti-Semitism. If any one could find a reliable source for this, this could go in the article. Vorbee (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)