Talk:Theresa May/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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. <span style="font-size: smaller;"

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. Oops forgot to login DominicConnor (talk) 19:57, 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.[2] 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)

As long as she is currently Home Secretary this is germane. I suggest that should she no longer hold this post in say a year's time, this fulsome detail could form the basis of a cross-referenced Main Article perhaps headable as "Home Secretaryship of Theresa May", and this page treat her period in that post more summarily or with not so great detail.Cloptonson (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2016 (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)

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)

Neutrality 1

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) —Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC).

Personal life and public image

The article says she polarises, something I think is true, but the article merely shows that some commentators in right wing newspapers like her. I'm going to find some representative articles that support "polarization". This is quite hard because all politicians attract criticism and I'd need to identify something that went beyond that, any ideas ? DominicConnor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC).

What happened to NEUTRALITY in this article???

This article is extremely biased! Theresa May has been involved in at least a few controversies in the past and NONE of them have been indicated here. There is even NO MENTION of the near media circus that ensued following the resignation of Brodie Clark! This article needs to be fundamentally changed so that it depicts an unequivocally BALANCED view on this particular political figure.

TVShack

Order is signed and shitstorm ensues. It will have to be covered so I started the section. Artem Karimov (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversies

So, exactly how many controversies does a political leader need to get into before they deserve mentioning? Above TV Shack there's also London Riots, UK Border Agency screw up and now getting Qatada's appeal deadline wrong... 86.182.123.152 (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Depends who's editing - I think its well worth a mention that her husband owns a large number of shares in G4S-the 'security experts' who are having to call in the Army for the olympics, as no Workfare slaves were available, as promised by the DWP.212.139.100.127 (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)twl212.139.100.127 (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed ban on extremists

Seems to me that May's proposed ban on media appearances by those "who “undertake harmful activities” to spread, incite or justify hatred against people on grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation or disability" (see [3]), including limitations that might extend to Twitter and other social media platforms, should be discussed in this article. Not sure how to get started with that or where in this article it should go.Steal the Kosher Bacon (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Deportation issue

Regarding this, we're not going to add every issue May's department has been involved in, especially if she has little or no personal involvement. Please remember this is a biography, not a place to air grievances. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

POV

This article has very serious POV issues. A lot of it is a hatchet job with cherry-picked sources. We really should have grown out of this crap by now. Tigerboy1966  19:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality 2

This article is essentially a list of mistakes and criticisms. The section about her career only seems to mention her rescinding of previous legislation and the various controversies (which are also conveniently covered in the controversies section), and the whole thing could do with a second point of view. For example, Norman Baker was widely criticised for his resignation, as he was believed to have done so in order to spend more time campaigning before the general election (in which he lost his seat).86.153.147.88 (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

In fairness, one would expect a balanced article on Theresa May to include a large number of controversies, but the duplication in here and WP:COATRACKing is just silly. Most of the high-profile asylum cases probably do belong in the article, but not twice.,, Dtellett (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Duplicating material isn't a neutrality issue, its a wikipedia issue, comes from people who want their say and haven't read the article thoroughly or even used a search tool. The English wikipedia is rife with duplication and triplication. The lead should sum up article content and duplication should be avoided in the body of the text. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 20:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

European Economic Area members in blue

Aren't there also some EEA members that aren't shown in blue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.11.52 (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it should say blue and green. I have corrected it. The blue ones are EU, the green ones are EFTA. See European Economic Area. -- Alarics (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2016

The article states that Teresa May is a 'Eurosceptic'.

As of today (20.2.2016) Teresa May has signed up to David Cameron's position on the EU, which is that we are better off as a member. I suggest that the term 'Eurosceptic', that is someone who does not believe in the benefits of EU membership for Britain, is not appropriate for Teresa May any longer since she has demonstrated her lack of scepticism by her decision to back Cameron's pro-EU stance.

91.135.1.24 (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

There are many Eurosceptics who nevertheless believe that the UK is better off in the EU. She has not changed her scepticism of the EU, but still wants to remain a member (while still wanting to change it) Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Term in Office

"She is the longest-serving Home Secretary for over 100 years, since Henry Matthews who served from 1886 to 1892.[12][13]"

Lord Llandaff's tenure was six years and twelve days. Mrs May surpassed this on 23rd May 2016. I think she might be the second-longest serving since the position was established.
Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Article currently says third longest, but I don't think that's right. Assuming we exclude those who held the office multiple non-consecutive times, the following were definitely longer: the Duke of Portland (1794-1801), Lord Sidmouth (1812-1822), and James Chuter Ede (1945-1951), although she's coming up on Chuter Ede. R. A. Cross (1874-1880), who served for six years and two months or so, is pretty close to even with May, though I'm not sure who's ahead. If we are talking about "longest total time served as Home Secretary," rather than individual terms in office, Sir Robert Peel (1822-1827, 1828-1830), Sir George Grey (1846-1852, 1855-1858, 1861-1866), and Cross (1874-1880, 1885-1886) are all still ahead of May. john k (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Contender for Prime Minister

I added some info about her leading in the polls. If she remains a strong contender to be the next Prime Minister, we should start a new section about this topic. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

This article may need to be protected

This was vandalism: 22:51, 29 June 2016‎ 78.147.106.100 (talk)‎ . . (74,371 bytes) (+20)‎

Should we add some protection so that only recognized editors can make changes? Peter K Burian (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleted minor controversy over deportation

Of Syed Talha Ahsan, who pled guilty and was convicted of supporting terrorism in an American court. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10509849/Britons-pleads-guilty-to-terrorism-in-US-court.html>.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Protect request

This article needs to be protected while events unfold. Unnamed editors have already tried to suggest May is already PM. We are some way from that yet; she has not yet even been confirmed as Tory leader! P M C 11:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

After yet another silly premature edit, I have protected the article. Sigh. Ground Zero | t 12:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably for the best. As PM she will no doubt be subject to similar edits much like other foreign leaders are! Calvin (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Cameron has now officially set the handover date for the evening of Wed 13 July. I think that this can be added with citations.--Varavour (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

some one look in to following

'...is the longest-serving Home Secretary for sixty years...'

Some one look above line in intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.88.165.63 (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I have removed it as it is unsourced. It should be sourced if it is to be added. Calvin (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Internet censorship

Efforts at internet censorship and recording what sites people visit.

Why is there no section on Mrs May's pro government intervention in the internet activities as Home Secretary? Wikipedia is an on line source - yet there is nothing on Mrs May's opinions and actions in relation to the internet.2A02:C7D:B5B8:DA00:6838:5EBD:957F:75D (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has added the relevant content yet. Feel free to add some if you can find the relevant sources, or if you are unsure then post a draft on the talk page and we can discuss. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Should we not always write in past tense?

Shouldn't Wikipedia articles be in past tense? I had written an edit in that manner - although newspapers are discussing the issue in present and future tense. But then, this Edit changed it to present tense. Revision as of 16:46, 11 July 2016 DRosenbach

May is to replace David Cameron as ... Hmmm, how does one use past tense when discussing something that had not happened as of the time of writing. My edit had said: May was to replace David Cameron as ... Which is correct? Peter K Burian (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

"Was to" makes it sound like she was going to become Prime Minister, but something intervened and stopped her. I think "Is to" is fine for a day or two until she actually becomes PM. Dionysodorus (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Someone (Firebrace) revised it and the new version seems better in therms of past tense: it was announced on 11 July 2016 that May would replace David Cameron Peter K Burian (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Photo: Theresa May wears pink?

I am sure I saw one version of this article with the comment Theresa May wears pink, That sounded like vandalism in a political article. So I did an Undo.

Then, I realized there was a photo of her, in pink in another version. I thought I was reverting my Undo of the pink comment in order to retain the photo. I was planning on adding a more suitable caption for it. Assuming that Wikipedia has a right to use that image.

But now I cannot find the version with that photo. Not sure how that happened.

If I have made some error here, I tried to correct it (assuming the photos should be in this article, which I do not yet know) but failed to do so. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft Communications Data Bill

Is there a reason why there isn't a section about her proposed Draft Communications Data Bill (known colloquially as the Snoopers' charter)? This is one of her most well-known proposed policies as home secretary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.205.100 (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The reason is probably because nobody has written anything about it. I agree there should be something (either for this page or indeed for when the page is split in the future) so you should put something together :) Calvin (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Her alleged Deputy

There is a significant article quality issue relating to her alleged deputy, George Osborne (until he was removed from her infobox after I added a 'citation needed'). Every recent leader of the Conservative party has one or more deputies in his/her infobox, seemingly based on a list recently removed from the article Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party (UK) for lack of citations (that article currently has no citations whatsoever). The issue can be swept under the carpet by removing Osborne from her infobox as a quick fix, but doing that will just leave the quality issue unfixed in many of the articles to which our readers can be expected to link from her article. I have neither the time nor the interest nor the competence to fix it myself, but I'm mentioning it here (and in the Talk page of the Deputy leader article and in her In The News candidates section) in the hope of bringing it to the attention of those who will know what to do about it.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

She won't have a deputy until she or the party appoints one. As of today, she isn't even PM. Keep your wig on, and wait until about Friday.Lathamibird (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

James May or Brian May ?

I see claims that she is related to James May, and also to Brian May. Are either of these true ?Lathamibird (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

If they are unsourced they should be removed. I couldn't find it in the text so I assume they were removed. Calvin (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2016

UK & USA Extradition Treaty

The Talha Ahsan extradition case raised controversy due to comparison with the treatment of Gary McKinnon, whose extradition - which was expected to be 10 days after Ahsan's - was stalled after a medical diagnosis of Asperger syndrome and associative risks, similar to a diagnosis given to Ahsan. This has led to accusations from mainstream UK media, Human Rights NGOs as well as religious groups of a racist double standard within Conservative Home Secretary Theresa May's application of the law — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.157.219 (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

liberal Conservative

I notice the lede describes her as a liberal conservative. With her record as Home Secretary ("Theresa May is no liberal" (2016)), and possibly some evidence of dissent from other editors, I thought I'd better check where that comes from, and sure enough we have a citation to the FT which says "she is a liberal Conservative" (2014) - Conservative with a big C. In my view this is a slightly different thing. Shouldn't it be a big C? or perhaps something else? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Division of article

Now that May has been confirmed as the next PM, it is likely that the article will need to be split. I suggest that Premiership of Theresa May and either Home Office under Theresa May or Ministerial Career of Theresa May should be the obvious choices. Then we will need a Political positions of Theresa May, but as there is only a very small section on this at the minute, it should be expanded in the current article before becoming an article of its own. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, we should probably wait until she is in the job and done something before splitting the article. I do however think that "Ministerial Career" would be the better option for a page. Calvin (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it concurs with what I suggested on 7 July (under Removal of Biographical Material). "Home Office under Theresa May" is an easily memorable title.Cloptonson (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to create Home Office under Theresa May if there are no further objections. I prefer this to "Ministerial career" because there is very little notable content about her before going into the Home Office. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no objections having had a think about it. Given it was her only portfolio while in Government, it does make much more sense Calvin (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

incomplete sentence in lead - please fix!

This is not a complete sentence: "Identifying as a One-Nation Conservative and characterised as a liberal conservative." Please combine with previous sentence to read: "since 1997, identifying as a ..." or something. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The article is no longer protected, you can make the edit yourself. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I've just done this anyway. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Conservative and Unionist party

Hello, In a recent statement (citian needed) RT hon Theresa May PM and MP stated the the Conservative party is actually called Comservitive and unionist party 86.136.136.203 (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it is. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

She mentioned it in her speech just now. The common name is still Conservative Party. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The WP article on the party says "The Conservative Party, officially the Conservative and Unionist Party, is a political party in the United Kingdom." However, it is usually and commonly referred to as the Conservative Party. I don't see a problem with this article. Chris the speller ^yack 17:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep. It only remains as a sop to the UUP, etc., as a pretence that an English conservative government won't sell 'em out to Dublin when the moment suits :)

In May's case it also means they'll do everything they can to keep Scotland in the grasp as long as they possibly can. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

To follow your recent comment that is on the Conservative party page a good way way but to star the full party name when originally mentioned then abrievated from then on 86.136.136.203 (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Articles must be in past tense - and you CAN use past tense when discussing future events

I just reverted a change where another editor wanted to use the word will to discuss May's becoming PM tomorrow.

Wikipedia articles are all to be written in past tense. This is an encyclopedia, not breaking news coverage.

How do you use past tense to discuss an event that has not yet occurred? Easily. In some languages the technique is called the "subjunctive" tense. In English, Wikipedia calls it Future-in-the-past. See that section at Uses of English verb forms.

I reverted the change that use the very "will"; it now reads "would". i.e. She would (not "will") be the UK's second female prime minister after Margaret Thatcher. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You can only use future-in-the-past, you know, in the past - that is to say, for things that are no longer going to happen. Or you can use "would" in conditional sentences. But you can't just go around changing present tenses to past tenses and expecting them to mean effectively the same thing - that's just ungrammatical. Dionysodorus (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, any editor can change tense. Please see Uses of English verb forms 3.14 Future-in-the-past (In some languages, such as Spanish, it's called the "subjunctive" tense instead.)

QUOTE: This form has a future-in-the-past meaning in sentences such as She knew that she would win the game. Here the sentence as a whole refers to some particular past time, but would win refers to a time in the future relative to that past time. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Dionysodorus you are a "well-educated native speaker of British English". (I hope you do not plan to debate Canadians as not being native speakers of English because we say flashlight instead of the ancient word torch). That is just a red herring. Wikipedia confirms that future-in-the-past is a correct tense. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I see an Edit War in progress Dionysodorus since you keep reverting my changes. But since this will all be academic tomorrow - in THIS topic (PM appointment) anyway - I will let your revision stand. (Perhaps some other editor will revise it.) It's only one day. But if there will be some other issue in the future - the more distant future - and you refuse to accept future-in-the-past, then I guess we will need a consensus from many editors to resolve it, or the Mediation Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee Peter K Burian (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Your quoted instance is an indirect statement. Because "knew" is past, "would" becomes past - because it's happening in the past. But "will" is the main verb here, and Theresa May still will become Prime Minister, as of now: the statement in question is relative to the present time, not to the past time (as in the quote you have there).

To put it another way, you can't use future-in-the-past, because the future in question is not, in fact, in the past.

But I'm probably not very good at explaining grammar: the point is, I am absolutely sure that you are wrong. If anyone agrees with you that you can use "would" like that, then people will comment, or will just revert me. And it's irrelevant whether I "accept" future-in-the-past used in that eccentric way; contemporary English usage, at least in the UK, doesn't. Dionysodorus (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

(I have nothing against Canadian English - but I can't speak for how "would" can be used in Canada. It seems a little bit improbable, but it might be that your usage is correct in Canadian English. It certainly isn't OK in standard British English.) Dionysodorus (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia does not differentiate between British and Canadian grammar in regard to the future-in-the-past tense at Uses of English verb forms. Like you I am 100% certain you are wrong. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: this section in the Wikipedia style guide tells us: "Generally, do not use past tense except for deceased subjects, past events, and subjects that no longer meaningfully exist as such." -- de Facto (talk). 21:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

That is shocking if true because the articles that I have seen are all written in PAST tense. Read this one, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)_leadership_crisis,_2016 Peter K Burian (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: it is true - follow the link I gave (which I've corrected to link directly to the MOS page concerned) and read it for yourself. -- de Facto (talk). 19:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Since she won't be PM for a few hours yet, my current edit (using the future-in-the-past tense): she would become PM...Peter K Burian (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

That's still ungrammatical - but I've removed it not because it's ungrammatical, but because it duplicates information in the first paragraph. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

What, no reference to snooper's charter?

Why is there no reference to her misguided, technically incompetent, failed and still failing attempts at disproportionately intruding our privacy at a massive cost?

It's called "Snooper's Charter", and it's been all over the news (and still is). Here's a few headlines in the news today:

• Snooper's charter could endanger journalists and sources, peers warn
• Theresa May becoming Prime Minister is bad news for privacy
• Theresa May becoming PM is a major blow for privacy
• Theresa May could launch huge attack on privacy and internet surveillance protections as prime minister, campaigners warn
• The fatal flaw behind Snooper's Charter
• The Snooper's Charter will change the UK, for the worse
• Lord Paddick warns that Snoopers' Charter could harm LGBT community
• Snoopers' Charter will give police GCHQ-level surveillance powers

And of course, this gem.

Thanks. 51.6.185.182 (talk) 06:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

If you feel that there is something that should be in the article and can source the material, then go ahead. There is nothing stopping you from doing so. If anything I think it would be a welcome addition to the article. It isn't missing because of some nefarious reason though, articles evolve over time and it might just be that nobody has written anything about the "Snooper's Charter" to add to the article. Calvin (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the charter without the POV... Dtellett (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Capitalisation of 'prime minister'

@Amccann421: Per WP:JOBTITLES, "Offices, titles, and positions " are capitalised only in certain prescribed cases. A case where it would be capitalised is "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" ("When the correct formal title is treated as a proper name"). Chris the speller ^yack 17:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

If you still feel strongly about upper case, tell it to the BBC. Chris the speller ^yack 17:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Chris the speller: It certainly appears, based on Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, that it is capitalised in nearly every instance. It was capitalised in every instance in that article, until you changed just 4 instances of the position's appearance. I'm not calling you wrong, but something seems off here. I'm not British and thus unfamiliar with this peculiarity, but I think that we need to be consistent here. Amccann421 (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Amccann421: The consistency will appear if you read WP:JOBTITLES a few times. "Louis XVI was King of France" – "Louis XVI was the French king", "Prime Minister May said ..." – "Theresa May became prime minister ...". Chris the speller ^yack 18:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

That is like saying 'there', 'their' and 'they're' should all be spelled 'there' for consistency. Firebrace (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Time she assumed the post

Should not it contain the time she assumed the post?

Thank You.

Dorivaldo de C. M. dos Santos (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Good God, man, in what way is that degree of precision of any import even now, let alone in years hence? P M C 07:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It's because David Cameron was PM yet at first half of the same day Theresa May assumed the post. I thought it could be of interest of the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorivaldo de C. M. dos Santos (talk • contribs) 00:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Prime Minister (Designate or presumptive)

I have made a few edits surrounding this. The constitution is that the queen invites someone to form a government. Even though we are all quite clear who that person will be, until the queen invites Theresa (or indeed David Cameron offers the queen his resignation) nothing can be presumed and she is not designated anything. It is all jumping the gun to give her the job title in any form. We can put it in the text what has happened but she is still home secretary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadrow (talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. That shouldn't be in the infobox. If people insist on putting it in the infobox, it shouldn't say "designate": "presumptive" or "in waiting" is better. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection to get us through this tricky day without it being ping-ponged back and forth every few minutes. DBaK (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the matter and people are already making the changes. When a person is elected president or prime-minister in o ther cases we always to the Designate, presumptive or president-elect there. Why should it be different here? Coltsfan (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a consensus. It's just a fact of the constitution. We don't vote on it. She does not hold any office of prime minister until invited by the queenQuadrow (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It's messy, but that is what you get from a democracy that has evolved from a monarchy over hundreds of years. We all know what is going to happen but she is in a sort of constitutional limbo right now. Quadrow (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Those continually editing her job title need to understand that constitutionally nothing has happened. We only know what is going to happen because we have been told the plans. The fact that in other countries you get elected or presumptive presidents or whatever is because that is constitutionally what happens. We don't actually vote on our prime minster that post is only by invitation of the queen and until the queen invites her nothing has changed. She is not designate or presumptive anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadrow (talk • contribs) 12:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC) — Quadrow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note The so-called constitution is irrelevant. We say what the WP:RS say. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Quadrow: "There doesn't need to be a consensus"? Are you new on wikipedia? lol Do u have sources that says that she is not the designate/presumptive PM? If not, you need a consensus to do such a big change. Coltsfan (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes I am new. The question is really, do you have sources that support your position. As it is her job title is Home Secretary. Quadrow (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Surely to change that you need show that there is such a position as designate/presumptive PM. You can't show that because there isn't. Quadrow (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Surely the original position (i.e. she is still Home Secretary) must remain until you show otherwise. There are plenty of people who believe that to be the case so surely to change it you need consensus and to reference sources. Quadrow (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Quadrow:, it has happened before, with other polititions, other PMs and other presidents. And here is a pro tip. If you make a change, more than one editor reverts you, start a discussion. Keep talking. Once the discussion is done and a consensus is met then we make the changes. Your behaviour doesn't help your stance here. Talk and discuss with the other editors before making more changes. Your EW might result in sanctions agains your user account. So stay calm and talk here first. Coltsfan (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure - but understand that revisions to prime minister are also being reversed and because there is no consensus surely the original position must remain until it is decided (i.e. not yet prime minister). Also, I can understand it happens for other countries because that is what happens in the constitution. The president is elected etc. etc. The British constitution is unique to some degree. The pm is not elected or in waiting officially. There is no such job title. We can discuss in the main body of text about the upcoming change but it doesn't exist as an actual position.Quadrow (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You know what. It's not going to matter in a few hours. But, as it stands it is wrong and I'm not the only person to hold that position. Surely we should revert back to before the change (i.e before she was given the title) as there is no consensus. I'm sure there are plenty of people disruptively changing her title. I am actually holding a reasoned position here that has support. Quadrow (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Just fyi, several countries, including Canada, use a similar Parliamentary system as the UK; the PM is not elected as a president is, but is chosen by the party in power (the party with the most seats in the House of Commons). So, this is not unique to the UK. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes - but parliament doesn't decide the PM. The queen does. And so we can't designate anything before she is before the queen. Quadrow (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

However, we can 'presume' that she will become PM, under the established constitutional conventions. Designate is a formal position whereas presumptive is not. Ebonelm (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that until she officially becomes PM, she is the PM designate since the Conservatives had announced that she will be replacing Cameron.

Reuters refers to her as PM-designate: www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-leadership-may-idUSKCN0ZQ132 2 days ago - be confirmed as prime minister-designate. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is much point arguing about it now as it's not going to matter. But I agree with User:Quadrow, that stating she is Prime Minister or indeed "Prime minister-designate" is wrong. It is also wrong to say she is Prime Minister in waiting, or a "presumptive Prime Minister", or a "Prime Minister designate". The UK Constitution does not have a position of designate Prime Minister, or anything of that matter. She is the Home Secretary until she is appointed Prime Minister by the Queen. WP:TIND is an essay that provides clarification that we can add the correct information ONCE it happens. WP:NOW also talks about misinformation. Assigning a role of "Prime Minister in waiting" when 1) the current Prime Minister has not even resigned, 2) When Theresa May has yet to ask to form a Government 3) The Queen is yet to accept and appoint her and 4) when the role "Prime Minister in waiting" (and its other forms) do not even exist is in my book bad practice. I know that there will be Wikipedians online when she is made Prime Minister, as I encountered many online when editing the articles to reflect her leadership win. There is no need to assign roles that do not exist for a future event. This is not the analogous to other countries that constitutionally have roles such as "President-elect". While I do not see much point crying over this particular instance, this practice should stop in future. The whole sorry episode screams of people being desperate to be the ones to "Break" the news that she has been made Prime Minister, and the only thing that is necessary is a line in the lead section stating that she was elected leader of the party and is expected to become Prime Minister on xyz day. The news articles use the term to try to explain it to people so that it can be related to the system in their own country. There is no role of Prime Minister designate in the United Kingdom. Calvin (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian, then you missed my point. I do not advocate the use of the term 'designate' which is a completely unconstitutional term. Ebonelm (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, there is no such role as "PM presumptive" either. But one of those words makes sense in describing her situation prior to late afternoon 13 July. Presumptive is fine with me. It's not a role: it describes her current situation, as would designate. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

What is wrong with waiting until she is officially the PM before adding the content? Calvin (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

'Presumptive' isn't a title its a descriptor and as such is perfectly constitutional as it suggests that is presumed she will become PM. Designate on the other hand implies that someone has designated May to be the next PM which constitutionally is not possible. Ebonelm (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It would be better to remove the whole section until she is actually appointed as PM. It is established in the lead that she is expected to become the next PM, the current format is misleading. There is no reason to have it there until she becomes PM. Adding "presumptive" doesn't alter the fact that it is misleading. It would be better for it to be commented out until she is actually made PM, in my opinion. I would have no objections to that. I do object to the current system which seems to be to erroneously claim she is PM when she is not, and adding a word or two in small text to try to distinguish it. Calvin (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is interesting, and i'm not saying who is right or wrong anymore. But one thing is clear: stop editing the article before a consensus is met. Right? Good. Coltsfan (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus. Revert back before the change (I.e. Remove the title Prime Minister in all forms until it happens). Adding that title without consensus is disruptive.Quadrow (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope. People added the content. After a while someone contested the editing. It's up for the person who is contesting to make the argumentation. Making EW will not help you with that. So please, for the love of whatever you believe, keep the status quo of the page and wait until the discussion is finished. This is getting a little childish of your part. Let the editors discuss and THEN we make changes. Coltsfan (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

sir - the title has always been contested forever being changed and the status quo is without. You continually adding it without consensus and then throwing insults is disruptive.Quadrow (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I am totally shocked at the lengths some people will go to to be disruptive. There is no legitimacy or consensus and no source referenced to the title so why is it still being added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadrow (talk • contribs) 16:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

What makes me laugh particularly is the fact that some peaople think that 'kissing hands' has any significance whatsoever. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

actually the hand kissing only happens on the privy council. Just a conversation and a hand shake goes on right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadrow (talk • contribs) 16:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

But, as weird as it may sound, that is how things happen in the UK. It has a lot of history and all sorts of weird traditions are done throughout parliament. This history is important which is why I object to the imprecise approach to the PM job titles being given here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadrow (talk • contribs) 16:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

'In the UK'... you mean, the same UK where I am? Wow. Amazing _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

despite what the Wikipedia trolls editing Theress's page are saying, the U.K. has no prime minister between David Cameron resigning and her visiting the queen. We are currently prime ministerless! Quadrow (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

she's just arrived so it won't actually happen until towards the end of the meeting and of course it isn't actually confirmed knowledge until we are told.Quadrow (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

what with the picture released I think we can safely say she is now prime minister. But, we are still waiting for official confirmation.Quadrow (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

She categorically is Prime Minister now. The Guardian front page says so, and here's a photo of her kissing hands: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnQmJBLXgAAH9uK.jpg:large Dionysodorus (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

arghh no one kissed anyone's hand and it's not official knowledge until a statement. Although we can say it's 99.9% happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadrow (talk • contribs) 16:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

What you fail to grasp is that we do not say anything; the sources do, and we follow them. Your entire edit-war wasted everyone's afternoon. Whilst we were PMless, did you notice how govt. stopped? No? That's right: because it doesn't. Ta. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The sources said she was not yet Prime Minister. So there was no need whatsoever to put the PM template block in until she was officially PM. A line of text in the lead stating that she was expected to become PM on that day would have been sufficient. It raised an important point as it is misleading to say she is an incumbent presumptive Prime Minister. The only reason why people put the template is because people wanted to "break" the news. Calvin (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I was striving to make wiki more accurate not content with the wishy washy understanding of the constitution on display. Of which had no sources to back it up. I am responsible for no ones time but my own. And I'm not alone in my position.Quadrow (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with Calvin, this was about people who just wanted to break the news. It had no respect for reality or accuracy and it meant the gun was jumped. There was no danger of her not actually getting the correct title once it actually happened. Giving her the title early would have misled many about how the Brittish constitution works. There was no need for it and no reliable sources could have been referenced to support it as it was just factually incorrect to call her prime minister designate or whatever.Quadrow (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The more I think about it the more dumb the opposing arguement seems. The insistence that I show sources that she wasn't prime minister designate is rediculous. It was up to those asserting that she was prime minister designate to give sources. Say someone had said she was a Martian that had gone unnoticed for a day, would it be up to me to reference a source that showed she was not a Martian to remove it? Plainly rediculous.Quadrow (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting how Wikipedia seems to go along with the constitutional fiction that the Queen has the power to invite anyone to form a government. Does not the word "invites" suggest that the Queen is able to phone the new PM and call him/her around for a nice cup-of-tea? Does not the term hint that, if the Queen thinks that the new PM is overly right-wing, she can reject him/her? Clearly, since the Queen has no real say or imput on this matter - should not the word "invites" be replaced with something more honest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.111.178 (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not dishonest, because it's an invitation that the invitee could decline. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.26.60 (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Greenwald concerning the "most extremist right-wing authoritarian leader"

Glenn Greenwald is a very significant journalist and it is ok to use a primary source (in this case his officially verified Twitter account) for claims made by him. --Երևանցի ^talk 14:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You added this passage:

"Upon the news of May's election as leader of the Conservative party, Glenn Greenwald wrote: "The UK will now have the west's most extremist right-wing authoritarian leader.""

While I am no admirer of Theresa May, I think that quote is tendentious. May is not the most right-wing member of her party by any means, or NATO leader (Poland, Hungary). The applicability of tweets as sources is often disputed, and no doubt very soon we will not be short of good sources critical of the new Prime Minister. Philip Cross (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether she really is the most extremist right-wing authoritarian leader in the west or not. Orban is probably borderline far-right, but that's not the point. By "the west" Greenwald might refer to the Cold War era concept of the West. But we're not here to analyze his words. It's an opinion of a well-known liberal journalist and is in itself significant, in my onion. He didn't gain 700,000 followers on Twitter for no reason. --Երևանցի ^talk 14:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Just because a journalist is well known doesn't mean we have to include their opinions on a BLP, least of all when they're extremely tendentious. If we must include a "reaction" section, which is questionable, then virtually every journalist with even a passing interest in UK politics has written a comment piece on May: no need to resort to harvesting tweets from the journalist with the most personal beef with her. Dtellett (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

she is more right wing then people realise. If you look at her immigration policies(splitting up married couples and deporting one of them if they didnt earn enough leaving children split up from their parents) and setting up vans telling people 'to go home' you would realise that

The claim that she is ultra right wing is ridiculous. The article already discusses the fact that some of her new cabinet ministers are right wing but also adds this, confirming she is NOT right wing. Quite the opposite in fact: After she became Prime Minister, May's first speech espoused the left, with a promise to combat the “burning injustice” in British society and create a union “between all of our citizens” and promising to be an advocate for the “ordinary working-class family” and not for the affluent in the UK. "The government I lead will be driven not by the interests of the privileged few but by yours. We will do everything we can to give you more control over your lives. ... When we take the big calls, we’ll think not of the powerful, but you. When we pass new laws we’ll listen not to the mighty, but to you. When it comes to taxes we’ll prioritise not the wealthy but you." Peter K Burian (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

ITV NEWS, Political Editor Robert Peston: May appoints right wing cabinet for left wing agenda "Her rhetoric is more left-wing than Cameron's was, her cabinet is more right wing than his was." http://www.itv.com/news/2016-07-14/may-appoints-right-wing-cabinet-for-left-wing-agenda/ Peter K Burian (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Then quote both Greenwald and those who disagree with him. We're not here to take sides. Electoralist (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

We cannot quote someone who claims May is ultra right wing after numerous major news media call her left wing AND after she makes a speech - televised around the world - indicating that she is after social justice = left wing. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure we can because we're not making a judgement or taking sides. There are countless articles in which quotes indicating contary viewpoints about an individual are expressed. Some people think she's left wing, some people think she's right wing. It's not our job to say who is correct. Electoralist (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

We cannot quote someone who claims May is ultra right wing after numerous major news media call her left wing AND after she makes a speech - televised around the world - indicating that she is after social justice = left wing. Aside from the fact that he just used Twitter to make that outrageous claim. I cannot find a single major news outlet that covered Greenwald's opinion to give it any credence at all. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Find a recent article from reliable news media that says she is right wing and I will support your plan to add that. With the full citation. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Left wing politics (this defines Theresa May, based on her recent quote) Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality. They typically involve concern for those in society whom they perceive as disadvantaged relative to others and a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.

May had said..."a promise to combat the “burning injustice” in British society and create a union “between all of our citizens” and promising to be an advocate for the “ordinary working-class family” and not for the affluent in the UK." = left wing. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Peter K Burian (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The reason news articles from 'reliable' media outlets continue to maintain the fiction that Theresa May is left-wing is beause they are (for the most part) right-of-center. As with Glenn Greenwald, are not reporters that question the offical truth considered by many Wikidedia editors to be unreliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.108.6 (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

One shudders to think what Mr Greenwald would have tweeted if Leadsom, Gove, Fox or Johnson had been elected. Tigerboy1966  22:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)