Talk:Theresa May

Questions

Did Theresa May really "contribute through her media appearances to Stephen Byer's decision to resign"? Was she really a "success" as Chairman? Maybe she did and maybe she was, but a statement like that needs to be properly referenced otherwise it's not neutral point of view. Shotlandiya 13:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It matters not... this is another Wiki-PR-pedia article. If she were a product it would read like an advert.

Wikipedia, promoting domocracy in knowledge, blocks such articles from editing, of course.

surely she got a BA in Geography, geting the oxford MA a few years later?Georgeryall (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For readers not familiar with the academic qualification system of Oxford, the B.A. is a conventional academic degree. An Oxford (or Cambridge) M.A. is purchased, normally at least a year after graduating, for a nominal sum. It used to be £5.

Edit request from WilberforceHope, 12 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} !) Maintain removal of heading to 'Accusations of homophobia to gay customers' and references and material re. Theresa May MP regarding her record on gay rights voting record, etc. There is not sufficient evidence to support an accusation of 'homophobia' given that the passage admits a mild record of voting against gay rights. This does not constitute 'homophobia' (claimed in previous edit) and is therefore potentially defamatory if restored.

However, it should be noted that "a mild record of voting against gay rights" is only achieved by her voting for civil partnerships which she immediately voted to water down, to include siblings and other relationships which would have made civil partnerships look increasingly unlike marriage. Without the vote for civil partnerships her record would read "a strong record of voting against gay rights". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokejerk (talk • contribs) 21:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The proposed abolition of ID is also a major issue but is not reflected in this article.

Too much 'she', should alternate with 'Theresa', Mrs May. A less impersonal style would help style of article.

Restore edits on Theresa May's shoes, fashion sense, etc. as they are in the common domain and a part of her identity as a politician. Removing these details was pedantic and peevish. Numerous references underline this aspect of May's identity.

The correct style on academic history is 'read Geography at St Hughes, Oxford University' graduated with BA, not 'gained BA, etc.'

Restore edits on Theresa May being most powerful British politician. This is asserted on the BBC and other media.

References to current mainstream media articles and May's current Tory Party entry lacking. Bad old links need updating.

Maintain a balance of issues related to May's career. Explore other issues, e.g. good standing after MP's expenses scandal.

WilberforceHope (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I would predict pretty confidently that as soon as such a separate article was created, it would be suggested that the content be merged back into this article. It's a notable fact about her career that in her new appointment she replaces Chris Grayling, there is widely documented print media discussion about the controversy that lead to this replacement, and MPs voting preferences are a matter of public record, hence the information is all easily sourced, not at all subjective or contentious (if it was, then it would be no more appropriate for Wikipedia even if put in a separate article). earwicker (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I zapped the section header, but the material itself seems reasonable to me, although it could use a tidy up. What do you think? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Theresa May grammar school

Tonight on the BBC it was claimed Theresa May is one of the few Cabinet members to attend a comprehensive school. Did the school turn comprehensive whilst she was still a pupil? W66w66 (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes - already mentioned in article.

Edit request from Njlucas, 18 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please change in the initial description current Conservative government to current Conservative Liberal coalition.

Njlucas (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's the Conservative – Liberal Democrat Coalition - added, with a link.  Chzz  ►  02:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Cumria incident (UK)

Request sentence on May's first major speech be left as this is of interest to British readers. Will update and reference this sentence once details of speech are known.WilberforceHope (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Cumria is of interest to British readers, and others. Where is it? Near Cumbria, perchance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.86.82 (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal wealth

This reference is to a Daily Mail article. Hardly a reliable source, more tabloid gossip. Can't see how this adds to the profile. Should be removed until a more reliable source can be found.WilberforceHope (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Mail on Sunday is general sympathetic to the Conservatives. If you have evidence that the article is incorrect, please present it here. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The claim is questionable. Exactly what are these estimates based on? Perhaps great information, but Glen Owen doesn't tell us. I'm generally fine with news sources, even when turning a passive sentence such as the one we have requires filling in the subject as "anonymous sources", but this story doesn't even reach that level. What's more, its conclusions are questionable. While it is possible that Sir George Young could have a net worth equal to less than the value of his two bits of real estate combined, it is not likely.

What's more, this is unusual for an article like this. Including income totals for the current Cabinet appears, even if it was not the attention, to be pushing a "these people are all a bunch of toffs" POV. -Rrius (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Cumbria, Daily Mail

The Cumbria shootings are hardly of 'undue weight' as they have been in the UK headlines for a fortnight and were May's first major task as HS. Should have been left in introduction.

The Daily Mail is a perfectly reliable source as part of a major media group. It's a published souce and do not remove references just because they don't chime with your POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.158.252 (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a highly contentious statement, the Daily Mail is a sensationalist newspaper and I have to ask whether you are in or from the UK ? Being part of a "major media group" puts you in the same boat as The News of the World, a tabloid that not only has Wikpedia page that lists its criminal activities which include fraud.

82.23.244.105 (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Do not remove reference to carers' registration scheme cancellation again, an issue of headline news. If removed, please reinstate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.158.252 (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ban unsupported allegations of 'homophobia' from resurfacing and unhelpful twiddling with established pattern of article

It has already been established that statements on May's record of voting on LGBT rights must be brief limited to fact and this article is not a vehicle for the facebook 'sack May' campaign or suchlike. The current content sums up what May had done and said on these issues. Any allegation of 'homophobia' could be viewed as libellous and undue weight must not be given to the gay adoption voting issue, civil partnerships etc.

Also, Theresa May is known either as Mrs May or May. She is not known as Ms May, this form will be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.230.9 (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Do not give undue weight to media news stories. Please use only reliable national media sources tested as safe with anti-virus software. Please do not reference to offensive tabloid-style comments. Please do not fiddle with established wording and layout of article other than typos or incorrect facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.230.9 (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The citation is fine. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight is being given to story and does not need three references to say the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.230.9 (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes

Can I suggest that refs. are kept to the short format, not the long 'shopping list' template one and that previous footnotes are not re-formated in this style as it creates a cumbersome layout to the edit page and leaves weird gaps that make re-editing laboursome and disrupts the established footnote convention on this page. There is no fixed format, just keep to the one users have been using on this article.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 06:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I am intending to convert all of the references over to the templated versions at some point, after holidays, this puts all of the information into standard format and contains full information rather than the various non-standard formats we have now. There should always be standard layout for the references whether using template or not rather than different information given in each reference. Keith D (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't see the point of the template as this article is frequently updated and its gets in the way and makes editing difficult as it takes up so much space on the edit screen. The main point with referencing is consistency and the form used here on the majority of entries should be followed as it's what most use. The 'short', untemplated form is perfectly acceptable and the template is 'optional' as it states here LarkinToad2010 (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

With or without the templates the format of the footnote should be the same and contain the full information. Keith D (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Just as long as the re-edit is not botched and reference templates, etc. removed and seplling mistaks made.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

When editing this page to correct typos or add new information, do use the preview screen first to avoid putting the wrong date, etc. and keep reverting your own edits to correct botched edits. I've been lectured about this and try to avoid doing it now. Also, don't put mild profanities in the edit history comments, confine them to what you've done and why.

Don't remove double square brackets on the first mention of terms such as ASBO as this is a term in common UK use as much as the full term. I detect a pattern of fiddling setting in again, by all means contribute but see that it adds to the facts and is not "fiddle-faddling".LarkinToad2010 (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• ASBO is a redirect page to Anti-Social Behaviour Order - there is no need to link both. I have adjusted it to reflect the Wikipedia Manual of Style and standard English formatting (Full name on first use, followed by acronym in parentheses). I have also italicised newspaper names. Bringing an article in line with WP:MOS to provide formatting that is more consistent with that of other articles makes an article easier to read for Wikipedia's large and international audience. Please don't diminish the contributions of others with derogatory terms like "fiddle-faddling". Ground Zero | t 12:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is my edits of yesterday that is being referred to where I ended up reverting myself. The situation came about because of some server errors being returned and edit conflicts with myself occurring for some unexplained reason. When I realised that a wrong edit had been saved on top of the correct edit I reverted out once the server errors had passed. I do not call that "fiddle-faddling". Keith D (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I see a number of low-level edits to names, etc. have been made by ISP only users but I am not sure if these are correct. Can I check if others can confirm if these facts are correct?LarkinToad2010 (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"Great offices of state"

The recurring awkward sentence about May being 'fourth woman to hold great office of state' is irrelevant. It is also inaccurate, as Betty Boothroyd held the position of Speaker, also a "great office of state". Gender is not relevant, qualifications, experience and actions are the facts that matter.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaker is not one of the Great Offices of State. While you might not like the implication of the article that gender is a matter of interest, it remains a fact, and a noteworthy one at that, which you ight prefer to interpret as reflecting the (possibly very slow) advancement of women in British politics.Ghughesarch (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not only not a matter of relevance or interest, it has no bearing on the subject so doesn't warrant a mention in the introduction. Gender politics has moved on from 'the first woman to', let alone the fourth (or was that 'forth'?). Besides, the term 'Great Office' has no standing, totally subjective and notably, no references in the stub cited.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which "stub" you're referring to, but Great Offices of State is perfectly well-referenced, and the meaning of the phrase is clear, well-established and not subjective. Ghughesarch (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Four references to newspapers and an ex-minister's speech is not 'well-referenced'. Only a citable academic journal or text verifying the usage will do.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the references cited in the Great Offices article are perfectly adequate in Wikipedia terms - maybe not ample, but adequate and not a reason to nominate for deletion. You can't start insisting on different standards for citations just because you happen not to like the article.Ghughesarch (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The term is inappropriate as, until a hard reference can be cited to the contrary, it doesn't exist.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:RS - I don't think you appreciate that Wikipedia is not a PhD thesis and the sources given are perfectly adequate in Wikipedia's terms, whether they satisy your high standards or not is neither here nor there.16:01, 10 September 2010 Ghughesarch (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)(UTC)

The Indie article referes to '3 major offices of state', not four "great offices" so it does not support 'Great Offices of State' as a reliable term.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I wondered when you would notice that. Perhaps you'd like to edit the Great Offices article to reflect the discrepancy (and note that article's talk page has an interesting discussion about the possibility of their being five Great Offices. However, it doesn't remotely confirm your contention that the "Great Offices of State" simply do not exist as a familiar, if fluid, concept and that the article should therefore be deleted.Ghughesarch (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I hade thought to put such a sentence early on, but when I put she is 'the most senior Conservative' I was told it was "peacock" term or suchlike. So I have modified the sentence to a less subjective term and one that can be supported by a citation. PS The latter needs to be formatted properly, that's if you haven't reverted the edit by the time I finish this sentence. Mind you, she would probably not be that glad to be in the same sentence as Smith who was possibly the worst HS ever.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it. Sorry, but I really don't understand why you've got such a problem with that sentence. It may not reflect well on some attitudes to women in politics in 2010, but it is factually correct, verifiable and notable. However, I take it that you do at least now accept that "Great Offices of State" (whether there are three, four or five of them) is a term in common use and that the WP article on it does not need to be deleted because it "doesn't exist"?

We could do with the views of a few other contributors before this becomes an edit war, however. Please leave it as it is for the moment Ghughesarch (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to be reasonable but I will now leave it to one of the senior editors to sort this one out.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone who has been contributing to Wikipedia for more than a few months?Ghughesarch (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Or hopefully one that knows how to reference properly after 4 years since first registering.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll ignore the cattiness. However, Peacock Term is adequately explained at WP:PEACOCK- which (if you made an unreferenced claim that May is the "most senior Conservative") the edit you describe certainly fell foul of. That's a completely different situation from the one around her holding one of the Great offices of State. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Pots and kettles. GOS is still twaddle and other users will catch on in due course.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Failed bomb plot

This section is bloated and apparent coatracking, it has nothing to do with May, all she did was comment what she was told, to bloat a huge comment about it is a waste of space in her life story. It says nothing about her at all. T. May was told this about the bomb and repeated it, yawn. Off2riorob (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have cut it down to size and. No need for the rambling quotes, add nothing. Also got rid of the Nadir Jaik or somesuch that is several months old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.10.238 (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Racist joke

Is this the Theresa May who was forced to apologise for making a racist joke in a speech a few years back?Keith-264 (talk) 13:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, wasn't that Ann Winterton and it was May that was questioned about it on Q time, way back in 2002.[1] Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of biographical sections

That the sections on the bomb plot and London riots are part of May's life story as the minister in command of home security for England (even if delegated to agencies) is beyond doubt. Do not take it upon yourself to remove vital information, the allegation of "coatracking" is rubbish! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.224.123 (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The clue is in her title "Home Secretary", she oversees home security so has ultimate responsiblilty for bomb plots and riots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.224.123 (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This is her Bio , not a place to report things that happens while she was Homesec and all things she makes a comment on as if it actually involves her. eg, a large section about a failed bomb and May was told by someone that it could have gone off, her involvement in the issue could not have been more minor and adding all the details of it to her bio is indeed coatracking whether or not it is in her field to answer comments about or not. Issues you might consider worthy of adding are her major plans and achievements and projects she has herself developed. Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It is part of her biography as it is part of her job. See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8003947/Theresa-May-dismisses-police-warnings-over-cuts.html. The edits will be restored and referenced in due course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.243.108 (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Things that she does, major issues in her career are what are of interest in her life story not what happened while she was in a job, things that are central to her life story. Things she plays a major role in, policies she creates and removes and so on..That telegraph link is about her, she is making the cuts to the police and she has commented about it,so it seems all to be about her.Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Whereas this, one of the sections you are desiring to add, isn't. as the other section also isn't . If we inclde sections on all such things it would hardly be about her life at all. Is this demo about anything to do with May...no it is not. Was it about something she did? Was she in charge of policing it? Did she play a major part in it or was she central to the cause of it... Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

On 10 November 2010, during a legally arranged demonstration against government cuts to Higher Education and proposals to raise student fees, a riot and occupation took place at Conservative Party headquarters at the Millbank Tower in central London lasting for several hours. The incident was the first major large-scale act of public disorder to face May as Home Secretary for England and Wales with responsibility for overseeing public order policy and its funding in the Coalition government. The riot caused extensive damage and vandalism to the Conservative HQ with a number of injuries and arrests resulting from the disturbance. May addressed the topic of the Millbank disturbances on the BBC's Question Time programme of 11 November. A further nationwide student protest took place on 24 November 2010 during which the police were criticised for employing heavy-handed tactics in controlling the crowds.

Obviously someone at HO is seeking to suppress this section. Inside job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.243.108 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really, I am left leaning, but not a supporter of the political system. What did she actually do? what was her involvement? Did the police call her to get advice? Was kettling her policy? Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

She is the Home Secretary and is responsible to answer to parliament for Home Security and law and order. That is her job and events affecting it are part of her life story. Therefore, issues such as terrorist plots and riots directly relate to her remit and belong in this article. Otherwise the entry may as well be her shopping list, favourite colour and latest choice of shoes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.243.108 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

What belongs in the article are her actions not the actions of others. If she made significant contributions that led to the incident happening or not happening then that information belongs. If all we have is she made a statement about an incident, it is a minor contribution and doesn't belong. A summary of each incident that happens while she is the home secretary does not belong. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

She has spoken on the London riots and has ultimate responsibility for public order in England and Wales. This is an essential part of her biography and belongs in this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.243.76 (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Student riots November and December 2010

May has made comment on the London riots of 09/12/2010 on BBC News. The fact she has commented underlines that the section of the London riots must be restored and reference made to her statement. Take this off edit block so this essential detail can be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.167.5 (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

She spoke on the matter on BBC News saying "what we have seen on the streets of London... is unacceptable". ('Unacceptable' = politic-speak for I can't do anything about it but feel I ought to act as if I were strong). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.167.5 (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

May, BBC Newsnight 09 December 2010: "peaceful demonstrations are acceptable, criminal damage and violence are not". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.167.5 (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Same old suspects vandalising edits. Make whole thing a farce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.65.123 (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Fashion parade

Please don't add trivia to the article. WP:TRIVIA - Off2riorob (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't lecture, not trivia, part of her "biography", the fashion is a major part of her public image and your edits are vandalism. You removed accepted long-standing edits and will be found out for what you have done. Her clothing choices are well-documented in press and widelhy discussed, so NOT "trivia". And you have vandalised the London riot entry by removing key quotes and detail. Won't rise to the bait, let others find you out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.65.123 (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

LarkinToad, you have been warned before about characterising edits you disagree with as vandalism and hiding behind dynamic IP addresses does not give you licence to carry on trolling, making bad faith accusations and generally disrupting Wikipedia. I raise this here as you are IP hopping at the moment so there is no point posting on "your" talk page but be sure that if you don't quit this right now a checkuser investigation and/or a range block will be coming your way. The best way to proceed from here is to revert back to editing whilst logged in and make some attempt to respect consensus and edit collegiately. Nancy ^talk 20:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And I suggest your circle stop hiding behind keyboard making disruptive edits and in the case of your colleague Richard Harvey, stooping to childish insults. Funny how they never get a block isn't it, too well in? How come you never berate the likes of him for his hyperactve editing? Couldn't care less about your threats, "You block if you want to, the truth is not for turning". The truth is, I have found out who the trolls are and you can't bear it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.65.123 (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Start class?

Just wondering why this is still a start, from the details & referencing level I'd say its a clear C and and would be a B is someone went though and addressed flagged any points that need expansion. --Nate^t/_c 13:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

Theresa May's article is, quite frankly, a whitewash. She's "revealed" her opinions, has she? How lovely for her. There's no mention of any opposition to some of her ideas, her spat with Ken Clark to name a couple of issues. Statements that she draws mixed reactions from the press, followed by a series of choice quotes taken out of context (all of which, unsurprisingly, are positive) hardly give the impression of a neutral article. Ironholds (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

Almost everything important said and done by politicians that matters incurs "mixed reactions", and if applied to entries for politicians would bulk them up without adding any content. We have to be sensible and only include reactions that are notable. The Ken Clark spat I see as borderline, yes it was amusing but I am not sure it is "important" since it did not reveal much of government policy and her part in it. If it had led to the firing of either then definitely it should be included. Perhaps a test should be that we realise that what we write might be there in ten years time, I can't imagine anyone caring about that spat then, pick a different timescale if you like and apply it to spats.

DominicConnor (talk)

Page should be redirected to 'Teresa May'.

After all, this is the internet. Most people can't spell for toffee and will more likely to be searching for the far more interesting and popular Wikipedia page of the porn star Teresa May not bigoted, right-wing vampires in drag. Vote for redirection. ("this is the internet .... bigoted, right-wing vampires in drag" actually, now I say it... Yours sincerely, I.P No. 92.25.114.203 (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)