Talk:Theresa May/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Move content to the Premiership of Theresa May article?

The Premiership of Theresa May article is bare bones now. It is quite far behind in terms of Cabinet appointments, for example, her trip to Scotland today, etc.

And yet, that article was intended to be the one to discuss such topics going forward. Perhaps it would make sense to move large sections of the Theresa May article over to the other one, with a note that Premiership of Theresa May is the primary article about May as Prime Minister.

OR at some point next week, stop updating this article and move ahead with future coverage in the one about her premiership. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said at Talk:Premiership of Theresa May, the bulk of the detail should be moved to that article per WP:SPINOFF, leaving a summary section here. RGloucester — ☎ 14:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I suppose we should have a consensus first (more editors agreeing). The May article should end before the cabinet appointments, in my estimation, because that is already part of her premiership. I nominate RGloucester (a Senior Editor) to move the content - after we have consensus.Peter K Burian (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the point of Premiership of Theresa May is so that this article is not overloaded with details. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we can lose some of the detail on the appointments - especially reactions to the interdepartmental moving of the Climate Change portfolio - but a paragraph or two on the general direction of the reshuffle and key appointments is definitely warranted in the article proper Dtellett (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Titles and honours

I think the "Titles and honours" section should be deleted - it has no references and seems unnecessary. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Collapsed infobox

What is the need for May's Shadow Cabinet positions to be collapsed? This is not standard practice on any other politician's article; many have very long infoboxes (e.g Winston Churchill). I fear that it will only cause confusion. Specto73 (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

How tall is she?

The article and userbox don't mention her height anywhere. Just interested if we are aware of that, and should include it somewhere. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

She's 1/4 inches tall. She drives around in the car from Monopoly. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, of course! And I knew that already, as well. Good stuff.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

IMDB and various celebrity stats sites all have her at 1.68m/5'6" but I haven't found that in any reliable source. Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Her height is not relevant and should not be added to her infobox. Meatsgains (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, unless she retired from a career in basketball or volleyball. Activist (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

External references

There is a marker about the external references on this article - what exactly is wrong with them? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Need for a political views section

Currently a lack thereof.

Also, currently the article lacks any criticism (even of relevant content) which smells like selective editing/astroturfing. For example, though there is a subsection dedicated to May coming out in favour of same sex marriage, there is no mention of her opposition to changing the equal age of consent, her opposition to adoption for same sex couples, or her opposition to changes to rules that barred local councils from promoting homosexuality. As a result, the section feels incomplete and unbalanced due to the lack of criticism.

I realise she's only been PM for a short period but there needs to be greater knowledge of who she is/what she's done/what she stands for and we cannot let Wikipedia be manipulated to hide pertinent information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.60.94 (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

If you can find relevant citations, then you are very welcome to post them here and I will add them to the article. I haven't seen anywhere where any information like this has been deleted, if you have seen it then please highlight it. May is generally quite a private character and so comparatively little of her views on topics outside her brief are known - I am sure they will become known shortly however. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, I later noticed there was already a section for political views. It should probably be expanded, however (also, there is mention to adoption in her history section). <http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/andrea-leadsom-and-theresa-may-are-two-of-britains-most-prominent-homophobes-and-ones-about-to-a7125131.html> has details on both sect 28 and equal age of consent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.60.94 (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The relevant section on her role as Minister for Women and Equalities already contains the text "May's appointment as Minister for Women and Equality was criticised by some members of the LGBT rights movement,[112] because she had voted against lowering the age of consent (in 1998) and against greater adoption rights for homosexuals (in 2002), though she had voted in favour of civil partnerships". Since these were whipped votes rather than a statement of her opinion I'm not sure that repeating it in her personal views section is necessary or even appropriate. And to brutally honest, the way to persuade editors of the merits of changing it isn't to make wildly inaccurate claims that the article "lacks any criticism"... Dtellett (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Dtellett that whipped votes are not an indication of views. Backbench EDMs, speeches and newspaper interviews are good sources. JRPG (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Caring One-Nation Conservative?

How long has May been a "One Nation" Conservative for? Two weeks? She was always on the right of the party before she ran for leader, now she's a "One Nation" Conservative. What johnny-come-lately article was cited for this? 98.10.179.163 (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thats completely untrue. May has never been on the right of the Conservative Party. Always on the left of the Conservative Party. Always.--109.150.46.48 (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

If May is really a caring One Nation Tory - why would she welcomed in Priti (nasty) Patel? For that woman (the MP for Witham) was more than willing to work with IDS to kick the poor, unemployed and disabled. Hardly the best person to help heal or unite the nation?

From the Theresa May article: 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."[159] Peter K Burian (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

And, after she became Prime Minister in 1979, Thatcher quoted St Francis of Assisi: "Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. Where there is despair, may we bring hope." The Iron Lady then went on to become one the least-caring and hard-right PMs in British history. A clear case of, not by their words shall we judge them?

Theresa May has been PM for two days. After she has been PM for a while, we might judge her differently depending on how she votes on certain bills. That track record will determine whether she is truly a proponent of social justice as her quote said. In the meantime, unless several major media outlets claim she is right wing or whatever, we have no choice but to rely on her quotes AND the political analysts who insist she is left wing. Also see the Talk topic about Greenwald. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Theresa May has been PM for two days - but an MP for how any years? For her past voting record and statements call into question right-wing media claims that she is a proponent of social justice. Despite the number of pointers as to the views of the new PM, it seems that Wikipedia are overly-willing to rely on the opinion of many (right-wing) news outlets about Theresa May. Given this, might not any statements about her opinions be put on hold?

Please, if you are going to participate in editorial discussions on a talk page, sign your comments (using four tildes; ~~~~) so that we can easily keep track of who is saying what and when; otherwise threads become indecipherable walls of text. As to how May's political stances will be characterized here, you need to understand that we will not base the wording on our own perspectives but rather on the WP:WEIGHT of what we find in WP:Reliable sources on the topic. So if you want to counteract what you feel is a biasing influence of voices on the right, you will need to provide sources which comport with our reliable sourcing/neutrality policies which support a different view, not your own personal analysis. Then we can decide how the final content can be balanced. For what it's worth, since May cinched the position, I agree that many sources have described her as centre-right, but the overwhelming characterization is that, at least in-so-far as Conservatives are concerned, she is a moderate and a pragmatist. The BBC ran a piece about a week back that summarized the perspectives being put forth in both UK and international press; I'll see if I can find it. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

When ask in the House of Commons if she would be willing use Trident to kill 100.000 people, the PM said YES! Might not Wikipedia file Theresa May under: Would-be Terrorist? 92.3.99.66 (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

No. WP:POLEMIC, WP:Verification, WP:Neutrality, WP:What Wikipedia is not. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Domestic violence

The third paragraph of the "Home Secretary" section states "On 4 August 2010 it was reported that May was scrapping the former Labour Government's proposed "go orders" scheme to protect women from domestic violence by banning abusers from the victim's home". It is true that this was reported by a couple of newspapers. However, it is not what actually happened. She introduced a pilot scheme for these orders in three police areas starting in June 2011. In March 2014 she rolled them out nationally under The Crime and Security Act 2010 (Commencement No. 7) Order 2014. In my view, whilst the statement is true, it is misleading. I would suggest that either this sentence is removed or further text is added to explain that she did not actually scrap these orders --Prh47bridge (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue, do you have any reliable sources that show this? If so, I will add them (or remove the sentence if appropriate) Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. The pilot scheme is reported by the BBC here. The order rolling them out nationally can be found here. The official announcement is here. I must admit I am also unclear why the closure of ContactPoint is mentioned in this paragraph. This is an article about Theresa May. As far as I can see the first announcement that ContactPoint was to be scrapped came from Nick Clegg and the decision was implemented by Tim Loughton who was Minister for Children and Families at the Department for Education (the department that operated the database). I therefore struggle to see how it is relevant to Theresa May. --Prh47bridge (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead image

There is a clear consensus is to use the left image, File:Theresa May 2015.jpg, for the lead image because it is five years more recent than the right image and is at a better angle. Cunard (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Left: May in 2015. Right: May in 2010

Which portrait should be used for the WP:LEADIMAGE? Firebrace (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• The one on the left looks more recent so that one. Peter K Burian (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree; she also looks more prime ministerial. Firebrace (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Left photo - The image on the left, not only because it is more recent but it is also at a better angle. Meatsgains (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The image on the left is more recent and from a better angle. However I would hope that the other image is used elsewhere in the article; it would be a shame to not use it at all. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Left photo, if for no other reason than the fact that it is more properly framed and thus polished for the purposes of the kind of portrait we'd like to see as the lead image. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Summoned by bot. The left image is more recent by five years so it seems preferable in my opinion. Coretheapple (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
• Left photo More recent, better framing.LM2000 (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
• Left photo - much better and more appropriate. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
• Left photo - It's a better photograph, it's better framed, better angled, better posed, AND it's more recent. Fieari (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Right photo - I agree that the Left photo is better framed and angled BUT it is not her official photo as Prime Minister. With David Cameron (and even Gordon Brown) their official photos were used. Even with Barack Obama. The right photo is her Prime Ministerial photo (look on Gov.uk) and therefore it should be used.--109.150.46.48 (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Even if the 10 Downing Street offices do designate a single official photo meant to represent a PM's term (I think in reality that they change the images used for official purposes, unlike the situation with some other heads of government), this is clearly not that photo, since it was taken years ago and is labeled as being taken from the Home Office's website. It can't be "officially" more than something that was just thrown up on the PM website for now. In any event, we have broader editorial concerns when it comes to lead images that trump any stamp of government approval; if the last two PM's articles utilized photos taken by their press offices, it was undoubtedly because they were high-quality, well-produced and appropriately formatted images representing contemporary coverage (at least to the beginning of the PM's government) and ideal to serve the needs of biographical coverage. Perhaps May will have such a quality photographic portrait produced by Downing Street soon, but the consensus seems to clearly be that the right image does not serve well in that role. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Left photo More recent, and looks better. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Left photo - Looks like she did when she took office. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Left photo More recent, and looks better, better framed, more PM … (will she look like that by 2020?).Pincrete (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• As a general policy I suggest that usually the latest available picture be used, and consider usually updating to a later available picture whenever an article is revised. 70.27.152.243 (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
• Left Photo As being more recent and better framed (as many others have mentioned above). Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• Left - more stately. The other reminds me of a Hollywood-style head shot actors send out. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
• Right photo - Although the Left photo is better framed and angled, BUT it is not her official photo as Prime Minister Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
• Left - More recent, better framed & looks better. –Davey2010^Talk 14:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
• Left photo – More recent and looks better. Graham (talk) 05:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Left photo - until a better, but recent shot, is taken. Buster Seven Talk 13:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Left - looks more official, angle is better, and it's 5 years more recent.Kerdooskis (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Left photo - more recent, better angle. Neither photo appears to be her "official prime ministerial photo" — the right one was taken when she was Home Secretary — so while I generally would give an edge to "official" photos, that's not a real consideration here. Neutrality^talk 06:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Neither - the right seems too old with nothing notable about it to override that consideration. But I will suggest there now is a photo of her on the PM website HERE and that seems a better choice than either. I think the official photo the easiest and best choice here, but I'd also respect just follow the cites and use the images of her first appearance at podium in Downing street. Markbassett (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• Left - Recent image and also frontal (at least "more frontal" than the one on the right) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Left it's more suitable for the lead image. I agree with the editor above who said that the other photo should be used somewhere else in the article. --st170e^talk 14:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Opening paragraph

I'm looking for thoughts on how we should word the opening paragraph of this article, since it has been changed a couple of times from Paragraph A to Paragraph B:

Paragraph A: Theresa Mary May (née Brasier; pronunciation: /təˈriːzə/; born 1 October 1956) is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party. She has also been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Maidenhead since 1997. May identifies as a one-nation conservative and is characterised as a liberal conservative.

Paragraph B: Theresa Mary May (née Brasier; pronunciation: /təˈriːzə/; born 1 October 1956) is a British Conservative politician. Since July 2016, she has served as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party. She has also been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Maidenhead since 1997. May identifies as a one-nation conservative and is characterised as a liberal conservative.

The change was made with the argument that Vladimir Putin's article is worded similarly. However, there doesn't seem to be a standard approach for such articles, and the biographies of both Malcolm Turnbull and John Key open in a similar way to Paragraph A. There are problems with both paragraphs, though I personally favour the first, since Mrs May is, first and foremost, the current Prime Minister. I thought I'd open a discussion here though as it's been changed a couple of times now. Any thoughts on this, ladies and gents? This is Paul (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I dont think we need to add British Conservative politician to the first sentence so in this regard "A" is better. I would ditch the last sentence May identifies as ... which to a casual reader is pretty meaningless and a bit confusing, that level of detail can be in the main body. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that A is better, the notable thing about TM is her being PM, not a Conservative. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that the first version is better. --John (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

'Vacations'

'The Mays are passionate hikers, and they regularly spend their vacations hiking in the Swiss Alps'

Can we change that to they regularly spend their holidays please as this article should be in British English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TraitorBagel (talk • contribs) 15:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Women in Architecture & Women in Archaeology editathons

October 2016
	Women in Architecture & Women in Archaeology editathons Faciliated by Women in Red

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Err, slightly confused by this. Don't think TM fits into either of these topics, does she? Could be wrong I suppose. This is Paul (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no such thing as 'Prime Minister designate'

Remove this constitutional vandalism at once! She is not PM until the Sovereign has asked her to be. 86.145.4.168 (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, on the whole - "presumptive" might be better than "designate" in the infobox. Dionysodorus (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Not "presumptive", not "designate", not "elect", not anything. This is to confuse the British constitutional position with that of the United States or other Presidential systems that have a delay between the Presidential election and inauguration. She is the Leader of the Conservative Party and Secretary of State for the Home Department, nothing more, until Her Majesty the Queen decides otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.89.60 (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I do somewhat agree with this, if anything it suggests that the template in itself is American-centric. Having said that, for the sake of a day, I don't think it matters too much. Given that the David Cameron has said that she will be the next PM, the 1922 Committee has said she is to be the next Prime Minister, and all news articles are saying that she is essentially a Prime Minister in waiting, I can't see Brenda refusing to make May the TM. I think this is an occasion where we can easily say that while it is "by the letter" misleading to say she is a Prime Minister presumptive, delegate, elect, etc.. we can ignore that rule as tomorrow she will be Prime Minister. I think WP:IAR can apply here and we should use common sense. Calvin (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

By convention the Queen appoints the person who is most likely to be able to hold the confidence of the House of Commons, which means the leader of the majority party or majority coalition when there is one. The only time when the Queen would actually choose who to appoint would be when there is no majority leader. As the Conservative Party has a majority, the Queen can only appoint May. I suppose you are technically correct because Cameron hasn't formally resigned yet, but this is a formality as he is no longer leader of the Conservative Party.Eggybacon (talk) 09:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an official document. We generally use the terms used by WP:RELIABLE sources, not necessarily those used by officialdom. I have changed it to PM-in-waiting, a term that is being used by many reliable sources in the UK, which sounds more British than "designate" and less clumsy than "presumptive" (a term normally used in the context of royalty). Firebrace (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

References

I deleted her job title as prime minister altogether because it hasn't happened. Constitutionally she is not prime minister anything and that is that. When the queen invites her then we can change her to prime minister. It's really inadequate to put other descriptive words to show she is in waiting. This is not America. The same thing constitutionally doesn't happen in the UK. We can talk about her being PM in waiting in the body of the document but we only have one prime minister at the moment and so her job title should not yet include the words "prime minister" until it has happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadrow (talk • contribs) 23:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It is not a myth. It is a tradition. Of course it is a ceremonial tradition. And major news media also discuss May being invited.

• Theresa May officially becomes UK Prime Minister | UK Politics | News ...

www.independent.co.uk Ms May, 59, was invited to form a government by Queen Elizabeth II in a private audience at Buckingham Palace

• Watch live as Theresa May meets the Queen to become Britain's ...

www.mirror.co.uk Prime Minister in waiting Theresa May due to be invited to form a government by the Queen.

• www.itv.com/.../theresa-may-meets-queen-as-she-is-appointed-new-pm/

Theresa May has become Prime Minister after accepting an invitation from the Queen to ...

• Theresa May made British PM at Queen's invitation, www.independent.com.mt - Theresa May then became Britain's new leader, accepting an invitation to govern from Queen Elizabeth II. and so on, and on, an on .... Peter K Burian (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not just a ceremonial tradition - it's one of the checks and balances that keep the British government working in unusual circumstances, such as nobody being able to form a majority coalition, in which case the Queen and her advisors would need to decide who would be most likely to lead a stable government. This last happened as recently as the 1970s. The point is though, that when one party has a majority, which is usually the case, the Queen's invitation is a formality, so it's not inaccurate to describe the leader of a majority party as the "prime minister in waiting". Eggybacon (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I certainly don't think we need to to explain twice using two different systems how to pronounce her first name. It looks ridiculous. --John (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree - her name is not particularly difficult to pronounce and takes away from the other content. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It's in accordance with the manual of style, and its increased informativeness trumps individual feelings of ridiculousness and ‘taking away from the other content’, which remains in place.

The name Theresa is actually very difficult to pronounce; so difficult, in fact, that you never know how to pronounce the name of someone called Theresa unless you have researched how that person in particular pronounces her name. Some say tə-REE-sə, others tə-REE-zə, others again tə-RAY-sə or tə-RAY-zə.

Some of the most important things to know about a name are how it's spelt, so you can write it correctly, and how it's pronounced, so you can say it correctly. Wikipedia consensus is that pronunciations are to be placed in the lede. Ardalazzagal (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Rubbish. It's an extremely common name, familiar to most native speakers of English. --John (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is saying it isn't an extremely common name. The point is that it has several common pronunciations, and the reader can't be expected to know which one is correct in this case. Most Americans will probably mispronounce it. Ardalazzagal (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

What are the "several common pronunciations"? --John (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I mention them all above. For more information, I suggest you read this, including the comments section, and this. Ardalazzagal (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

If that's your best source, I think maybe we are done here. Do you have any more convincing evidence for your statement above that Most Americans will probably mispronounce it or is that also based on original research and froth from the blogosphere?--John (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It's impossible to see how any editor of good faith could read those two links and still think there is no need for a pronunciation guide in this article, so I hereby stop assuming good faith on your part. As for the ban on original research, that's for articles, not for discussions on talk pages.

As to ‘froth from the blogosphere’, the first link above is to Language Log, which is a reliable source. The post is written by Mark Liberman, who is a professor of phonetics at an Ivy League university.

The American Heritage Dictionary lists the several pronunciations of Theresa. It's not the only American dictionary to list the tə-REE-sə pronunciation first, something which suggests that Americans are more likely to say tə-REE-sə May than the correct tə-REE-zə. Ardalazzagal (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly helpful having the pronunciation listed. The difference between pronouncing it with -z- and pronouncing it with -s- is almost trivial, and the difference is a dialectal one rather than a result of her name being pronounced unusually.

If we must have the pronunciation listed, though, I think it would be better to include the surname: that wouldn't look quite so odd. Dionysodorus (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Even though the name has four different English-language pronunciations, you don't think it's particularly helpful having the pronunciation listed. And you think the difference between /z/ and /s/, which is phonemic and thereby per definition non-trivial, is ‘almost trivial’. And you think the fact that the pronunciation of Theresa varies geographically is an argument against giving the pronunciation, even though that precise fact makes many people likely to mispronounce her name.

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, however ill-founded. Feel free to implement your suggestion to include the surname. Ardalazzagal (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• On reading this discussion, I am struggling to see a consensus here to include the pronunciation. I would be open to reconsidering my view if we can find convincing sources that this is a topic that is frequently confused or even discussed. As it is, I think it has to go per WP:ONUS.--John (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Multiple people saying ‘I don't like it’ or ‘I don't see the need’ do not trump one person clearly explaining the need.

User:Dionysodorus' arguments have been fully rebuked by me above. As for your arguments, I continue to hold the view that they're not being put forward in good faith. It's not possible for a person of good faith to read my links above and conclude that this article would be better without a pronunciation guide. Your real reason for wanting the pronunciation guide off the article is that you think it ‘looks ridiculous’, as you write above. Well, tough luck, because that's not a valid argument. Wikipedia is about information, not beauty.

Obviously, pronunciation guides are not to be restricted to cases that are ‘frequently discussed’. That's a ridiculous threshold that you've invented yourself and that would lead to the removal of most pronunciation guides on Wikipedia. That it has been discussed at all has been shown by me above. A convincing source that it is frequently confused has been provided with the American Heritage Dictionary, which shows that there are four different English-language pronunciations of Theresa, of which the one most commonly used by speakers of American English (the majority of English-speakers) is incorrect for Theresa May.

The onus is on me to provide convincing arguments. I have done so, to the point that only an editor of bad faith could disagree with me. You seem to labour under the misapprehension that you need to say you agree with me or else my edit goes against consensus. That's not the case. You would actually need to present valid arguments against my position; disagreeing is not enough. Any neutral editor would come to the conclusion that no valid argument has been presented by you and that you're ignoring my valid arguments out of bad faith.

As you're acting out of bad faith, I will revert any edit by you as vandalism. I suggest you ask yourself: ‘Am I on Wikipedia to build an encyclopaedia or to impose my aesthetic preferences on the world? What could possible be gained by keeping Americans in the dark as to the correct pronunciation?’ Ardalazzagal (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Mmm. Your arguments are not convincing to me. I do not agree that the pronunciation guides are a helpful addition to the article. Please read WP:CONSENSUS, WP:V, WP:SYNTH, WP:AGF and WP:NOTVAND. For me to change my mind, I would need to see several reliable sources discussing the matter specifically in relation to the subject of this article. This is the normal standard for inclusion here. --John (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that Ardalazzagal is missing the point here: consensus has to be established for controversial changes such as his introduction of a pronunciation guide; he has not established consensus; therefore it should not be introduced. Denying my good faith is merely rude, and my very brief statement offers no basis for it. Anyway, Ardalazzagal has not refuted my argument, but has only rewritten out what I said in a derisory tone. I continue to maintain that pronunciation guides are best used to distinguish between cases of genuine ambiguity or idiosyncrasy, i.e. where the pronunciation of a name is somehow unusual. Theresa May's name is pronounced as one would ordinarily expect it to be pronounced in British English. If we included pronunciations for Theresa May, it would set a precedent for putting in a pronunciation guide for every single person named Theresa on Wikipedia - which would be silly, and certainly isn't required by any policy. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The point is that the only way there isn't consensus on including pronunciation information in the article, is if the opinions of two editors acting in bad faith are taken into consideration. Assuming that you had read my links, your ‘very brief statement’ could only have been delivered in bad faith. Your assertion above that I haven't refuted your argument is as absurd as the argument itself.

The majority of readers don't speak British English, so any expectations that might pertain to speakers of British English are irrelevant. As there are four English-language pronunciations of Theresa, of course pronunciation guides are needed for all Theresas on Wikipedia. How could that possibly be silly? The problem would be that it's often difficult to find out how a given Theresa pronounces/pronounced her name – which is precisely why Wikipedia should include that piece of information. Ardalazzagal (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, your argument is effectively "I am right, therefore anyone disagreeing with me is wrong, and there is consensus if we strip out those people who disagree with me"? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the editors who disagree with me do so for non-valid reasons (such as ‘I think it looks ridiculous’ or ‘it's not needed’ – even though the need has been explained to the satisfaction of any editor of good faith), and that they are only pretending to disagree for rational reasons, their disagreement actually being for emotional reasons. Ardalazzagal (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm on your side here as far as including pronunciation, but your effort to discredit others' opinions is in poor form. You would do well to drop this whole "bad faith" line of argumentation. Bad faith means someone does not have the interest in the project in mind, not that they are being foolish or unreasonable.

I understand that you feel that you have provided sufficient reasoning, but that another editor is not convinced does not mean they are acting in bad faith. It means they need more convincing (or, if we want to be ungenerous, that they are being stubborn). I think you've garnered some good will by the Wikipedia gods by trying to get a stronger community response. Don't undermine it by making petty, uncivil accusations. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I respect that you think the two editors in question have the interest of the project in mind. Please respect that I, on the other hand, am unable to explain their behaviour as anything other than their acting in bad faith. When someone is acting in bad faith, that needs to be pointed out, and it's not in poor form, petty or uncivil to do so. Ardalazzagal (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you, though? You keep saying that the only explanation you can fathom for them disagreeing with you is that they are acting in bad faith and I just gave you two alternate explanations that you disregarded out of hand. I don't think anyone is fooled here; when you say "unable", you really mean "unwilling." That's not only disrespecting the editors you are attacking (and let's not mince words, an assumption of bad faith is an ad hominem attack), it's disrespecting me. It's also an unnecessary distraction, as this post exhibits.

Our talk page guidelines call you to be generous in your interpretations of other people. That's what AGF is about. I know you're smarter than this. Act like it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You're accusing me of lying, and you're not mincing your words: ‘I don't think anyone is fooled here; when you say "unable", you really mean "unwilling."’ I fail to see how that's any different from me accusing someone of lying and not mincing my words. Apparently it's OK when you do it but not when I do it. How hypocritical.

Nobody is disrespecting you, and I only concluded with bad faith during the course of the discussion. We're allowed to stop assuming good faith. Ardalazzagal (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you're not allowed to stop assuming good faith. Only the clearest instances of bad faith behavior would qualify for a cessation of this assumption. In those rare cases, you report the editor for misbehavior to the relevant noticeboard because clearly bad faith behavior is what gets an editor sanctions. What you don't get to do is cavalierly dismiss their arguments, as if it were a rhetorical trump card. As long as these editors are here, you must engage with them with AGF.

And, again, I appeal to your practical side. Look at how bruised your ego is at even the implication that you might be dishonest. These are the sorts of things that unravel civil and productive discussion. You focused so much on yourself that you failed to address the argument I was making. This is how personal attacks lead to sideshows that take away from productive dialogue.

I'll ask you one last time to drop this bad faith argument. The other editors' supposed bad faith is not demonstrable or clear and would not garner sanctions were you to bring it to the relevant noticeboard. Your behavior, however, would. Take this as your final warning. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I would respond to this, but apparently that would make you go through with your threat. Way to silence your opponent. Ardalazzagal (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

That is a bit of a pickle. I take your point. If you want to continue this discussion (which is IMHO off topic here, but still important if you really are having trouble with AGF) you are welcome to do so on my talk page. We'll consider that a threat-free zone. Deal? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 07:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

As long as her name is pronounced /təˈriːsə ˈmeɪ/, there's probably no need for pronunciation information, though it still wouldn't hurt. If it's pronounced differently from that, there definitely is a need. And including pronunciation information is by no stretch of the imagination "controversial"; it's perfectly standard practice to include pronunciation information in Wikipedia articles. Demanding that consensus be found on the talk page before adding pronunciation information is as ridiculous as demanding that consensus be found on the talk page before adding her date and place of birth. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't mean that pronunciation guides are intrinsically controversial, which would indeed be ridiculous: I mean that this particular one is controversial in that people disagree over adding it, and therefore that this falls under WP:NOCONSENSUS. Dionysodorus (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

As her name is pronounced /təˈriːzə ˈmeɪ/, there definitely is a need. Ardalazzagal (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there precedent for including a pronunciation guide for names with two common pronunciations? Is there ever clarification on Wikipedia on whether a name is pronounced /ʼdʒoʊsəf/ or /ʼdʒoʊzəf/, or even /ʼstiːvən/ vs. /ʼstɛfən/? IMO, you could get away with saying Theresa or Joseph with the wrong consonant sound in the middle, but the two pronunciations of Stephen are different enough to merit clarification; however, if you want to know how to say Stephen Curry's first name, his Wikipedia article won't help. So here's a question: Is it wrong to pronounce Theresa May's name with an S sound? If so, maybe the IPA and respelling are needed. But then why shouldn't Tony Blair's article specify /ʼblɛə/ so we American's won't mispronounce it? pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 15:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is wrong to pronounce Theresa May's name with /s/. The difference to the other situation you mention is that the distinction between [ˈblɛə] and [ˈblɛr] is non-phonemic (they're both phonemically /ˈblɛər/), while the distinction between /təˈriːzə/ and /təˈriːsə/ is phonemic. Within a given accent, there is only one way to pronounce Blair but more than one way to pronounce Theresa. Ardalazzagal (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The point about phonemic vs non-phonemic differences is interesting and relevant, but I don't think it's the most important point. The key point is this: Theresa May cares about it. Most people want to pronounce names as their bearers prefer. We know how she prefers to pronounce it, and apparently it matters to her. In that sense alone, there's a very compelling argument that there's a right and a wrong way to pronounce it. I doubt very much, by contrast, that Tony Blair cares about rhoticity in pronunciations of his name (particularly given his connections with both Scotland and England). If he did, it would be worth including that information. (And I have a come across a few people with Welsh names like Carwyn, for instance, who are irritated by non-rhotic pronunciations of their names — such irritation might be unreasonable or quixotic, but enough reason to include a pronunciation guide.) Garik (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The point is that my arguments would be convincing to any editor acting in good faith; the fact that you, acting in bad faith, claim not to be convinced by them is irrelevant. I know you claim to disagree that pronunciation information is a helpful addition to the article, but as it's not possible for an editor of good faith to disagree with that, that's also irrelevant. You still haven't presented any valid arguments for your position; disagreeing is not enough. I'm already familiar with all your links.

If several reliable sources discussing a pronunciation specifically in relation to the subject of the article were the standard for inclusion of a pronunciation on Wikipedia, Wikipedia would barely have any pronunciation guides. Your claim that that is the standard for including a pronunciation guide goes against Wikipedia-wide consensus, a consensus that can't be overridden by a discussion on this page. Ardalazzagal (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• As this discussion could use some more input, I've invited the active participants in what seems to be the most relevant WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics/Phonetics, to participate. Ardalazzagal (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the following is clear: 1) There are at least four different ways to pronounce the name Theresa; 2) We know which one she uses for her own name (/təˈriːzə ˈmeɪ/); 3) She apparently cares that people pronounce it as she does; 4) Some readers of this article would find it useful to know which pronunciation she prefers. I therefore think there's a very strong case for including the information, ideally using both the IPA and the Wikipedia respelling key (though I guess the IPA alone would be ok). I disagree that including such a guide would look ridiculous or get in the way of other content. If people really don't want it in the lead, it could go in a footnote or the infobox. Garik (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. If there is even a sliver of a chance that readers (particularly native English speaking readers) will be uncertain about the pronunciation of her name because of the possibility that it is pronounced differently than the typical pronunciation of Theresa, we should include a pronunciation. I think Ardalazzagal has provided evidence of people actually being confused by this; though this evidence doesn't pass the standard of usable sourcing for our articles, I think it drives forward a compelling enough case that at least some people will be uncertain and that this uncertainty can be clarified at Wikipedia.

However, I would transcribe just the first name. There's no uncertainty about the pronunciation of May. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there's no need to transcribe May, as far as I can see. Garik (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Given that there are multiple ways to pronounce Theresa and the PM prefers a particular way, I don't see the harm in including a pronunciation guide, though if we're going to use only IPA, I would prefer the use of {{IPAc-en}}, which includes plain English pronunciation hints in mouse-over text. clpo13_(talk) 18:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The opening discussion seems to be concerned over using "two different systems" (emphasis mine), which might seem a bit heavy; currently there is none, and I do not think adding a pronunciation for a proper name should be treated as suspect by nature.

What were the two systems though? IPA and our spelling pronunciation system? So as far as "Theresa" indeed is a common English name, we might be able to get away with just the latter, since the usual purpose of IPA is to show pronunciation for foreign names. But this is surely debatable. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 20:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Wait. What? That's not at all the "usual purpose" of the IPA at Wikipedia. Of course we use IPA for non-foreign words. That's why we have a specific IPA for English help page. We also would not be able to use just the respelling, as policy regarding pronunciation is to do the respelling in addition to IPA. If the concern is clutter over two pronunciations, we can use the infobox, which others have already suggested. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• When names are pronounced differently in different dialects of English ("Colin" is an even better example), of course there should be information for readers on how the person pronounces their own name. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you all for the considered opinions. Having read them all and thought about it a lot, I am still not convinced that it is necessary in this case. Many names are pronounced differently in different dialects, including my own. When I worked in America I got really tired of people pronouncing my name as what sounded to me like "Jan". I got even more annoyed when I told people my name and they responded "Nice to meet you, Jordan". The difference is illustrated fairly well by the two audio samples here. But I now accept that Americans pronounce this name differently from how I pronounce it. It is trivially easy to find other examples. Should every article on someone with my (very common) first name have a pronunciation guide? I don't think so. In the absence of good specific evidence that the pronunciation of Theresa May's name is a matter of controversy, I do not think this article needs to include a guide. --John (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The pronunciation of the name John doesn't vary phonemically at all throughout the English-speaking world. It's /ˈdʒɒn/ JON everywhere. The name Theresa, on the other hand, has four phonemically distinct pronunciations within American English alone, as I prove with my link to the American Heritage Dictionary above. No one is suggesting we give phonetic transcriptions of the various phonemically non-distinct pronunciations of John and other names that correspond to only one phonemic transcription. But Theresa corresponds to four. Within a given accent, there's only one way to pronounce John but four ways to pronounce Theresa. Readers can't be expected to know that there are more than one phonemically distinct pronunciation of the name Theresa, much less which one is used by Theresa May.

Americans pronounce John phonemically identically to how you pronounce it. But they don't necessarily pronounce Theresa May phonemically identically to how Theresa May herself pronounces it. Consequently, they don't need a phonemic transcription of John but do need one of the Theresa in Theresa May. Ardalazzagal (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

John, I think you are assuming that the different pronunciations of Theresa can be lined up with dialectal differences. They can't. Just like varying pronunciations of Andrea are not dialectal.

You may also be mistaking phonetic differences for phonemic ones; the different pronunciations of John vary from dialect to dialect, but these are regular, predictable changes that people allow for when accommodating their ear for different dialects. From what I gather people are saying about the proper pronunciation of her name, if I pronounce Theresa May's name with what I think you are considering an "American" way (that is, a voiceless s), I would be incorrect, even though I am speaking with an American accent. That's not a predictable difference. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and I have no evidence with which to disagree with the truth of what you say. But is it important enough to put in the article? Does it belong in the lead? In the Vincent van Gogh article I have recently been working on, the various pronunciations of his name are notable and have been discussed in high quality sources. Is this the case here? In that article we put it in a footnote. Is it more significant here than in the Van Gogh article? --John (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's often hard to tell why the IPA is placed where it is, in the intro, a footnote, or a separate section. Sometimes it's placed in a footnote or separate section when there are so many alternative pronunciations that putting them in the text makes the intro hard to read, or to allow for explanation of the alternative pronunciations. Sometimes it's put in a footnote simply because someone wants a cleaner-looking intro sentence. And sometimes it seems random. — Eru·tuon 21:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The pronunciation of her name is of nominal importance. It's as important as the pronunciation of many other people's names, though less so than cases like van Gogh where there is dispute or citable variance. The most obvious place to put it is in the lede, but I don't think anyone in favor of including the pronunciation is wedded to that location. It is my understanding that there is a special parameter for including pronunciation in the infobox because of past cases where resistance to including pronunciation in the lede was partially based on the clutter that comes with putting it in introductory text. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 01:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Demonstration of the infobox parameter. It displays the pronunciation below the list of offices, under Personal details. — Eru·tuon 02:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

People who don't want pronunciation guides in ledes tend to be people who simply dislike pronunciation guides as such (for whatever irrational reasons). If they can't get their way, they will often reason that burying the pronunciation guide is the next best thing. Agreeing to putting the pronunciation in the infobox would be pandering to the Wikipedia-damaging antics of such people. If the pronunciation information is placed in the infobox, significantly fewer readers will benefit from it. It belongs in the lede where it will do the most good. Ardalazzagal (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone more involved in the relevant discussions than I can point to what are likely pages and pages of well thought out argumentation both ways on the merits of the infobox parameter. So I can neither confirm nor deny your generalization.

Well, I may have spoken out of turn when I suggested that others weren't wedded to a location. I am personally neutral to location. I don't see one IPA transcription in the lede (which is very common) as a significant amount of clutter (certainly no more than her maiden name, though these things can add up). The infobox may be a good compromise location. The information is there (along with her signature, which I have never cared about) but it's not in the way of people who don't care about pronunciation. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• • • I agree with John's sentiments as expressed here. I also think Ardalazzagal's behaviour here is astonishingly bad and quite needlessly insulting, in accusing me of bad faith just because he/she disagrees with me. Dionysodorus (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, it's acting in bad faith that constitutes astonishingly bad behaviour, not pointing it out. If you feel insulted, you have no one but yourself to blame. Ardalazzagal (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Ardalazzagal, you seem to be trying to drag an editorial disagreement into a personal one. Just because I disagree with you does not automatically mean I am acting in bad faith. That is verging towards solipsism and also makes it hard to work with you or take your arguments seriously, which is a shame. --John (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Enough with this strawman: I didn't automatically accuse you of bad faith just because we didn't see eye to eye on this matter. You disagreed with me for three comments without me accusing you of bad faith. It was only your fourth comment that made me stop assuming good faith.

As for being hard to work with, I'd say that's true of someone who starts a debate by calling his opponent's edit ridiculous-looking, then goes on to dismiss a thoughtful three-paragraph comment as rubbish, and finally tops it all off by describing a piece written by a professor of phonetics as froth. When you behave like that, you can hardly expect people to go out of their way to assume good faith on your part.

(By the way, if I were a solipsist, I wouldn't believe in the existence of Theresa May.) Ardalazzagal (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

As someone not previously involved in the discussion, I can't help but disagree with John's opinion that what he did at the start of his dispute with Ardalazzagal can be reduced to simply "disagreeing". In particular, I believe this comment denotes an attitude that prevents any constructive discussion from happening. He also dismissed the evidence he was given in a superficial manner; while I do understand that it can be difficult to assess the reliability of blogs, John could have probably given this source the benefit of the doubt, or, to put it differently, he could have assumed good faith. Isn't it funny how the act of not assuming good faith is completely ignored, but making the accusation of bad faith is treated as the ultimate attack? ComplexParadigm (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Since Theresa May prefers one of the two main pronunciations of her name and rejects the other, it should certainly be noted in the article.

@Ardalazzagal: A nitpick: /blɛər/ and /dʒɒn/ are diaphonemic transcriptions. Phonemically Blair and John are /blɛə/ and /dʒɒn/, or /blɛː/ and /dʒɔn/, in RP/Standard Southern British, and /blɛr/ and /dʒɑn/ in General American. The two dialects don't have the same number of vowel phonemes, and the phonemes don't correspond with one another in all cases. The Wikipedia IPA system hides this fact with the symbols it uses, unfortunately. — Eru·tuon 21:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not all that interested in any of the ad hominem stuff. I remain unconvinced that it is essential to gloss the pronunciation of this very common name, twice, in the lead of this article on a politician. From everything I have read, if we followed the arguments of those wishing to add this, we ought logically also to sound out all instances of "John"; so for example John Major would then have to state in the lead that his name is "properly" pronounced as /dʒɔn/ˈmeɪ.dʒ.ə(ɹ)/, and then to add a respell version for those unsure how to pronounce his name but unwilling to learn IPA. I think this would be appropriate on a dictionary, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --John (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  There is only one pronunciation of John in RP, but there are two (or four) pronunciations of Theresa. That's why a pronunciation guide for John isn't necessary but one for Theresa is. — Eru·tuon 19:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  Most English speakers don't speak RP. I imagine most English speakers probably also don't care exactly how names are pronounced. --John (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  RP is the dialect Theresa May speaks. "Most English speakers" probably don't care about the majority of the information on the page. Their interest or lack of it is irrelevant. — Eru·tuon 23:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

To be more accurate, there is only one pronunciation of John in any given dialect. Since our pronunciation guide is designed to control for dialectal variation, only one transcription is necessary because the variable pronunciations of John are perfectly aligned with regular dialectal variations. That is the difference between the various pronunciations of John and the various pronunciations of Theresa. Do you see the difference, John? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 06:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, User:aeusoes1, I might have missed this. But, as an RP speaker, I was under the impression that Ter-ee-za was the only, or at very least the ordinary, pronunciation of "Theresa" in RP, and therefore was aligned with the dialect in question. Have you got a source to contradict this? Dionysodorus (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

According to the sources sources Ardalazzagal provided, there is another pronunciation typical in RP where the stressed syllable has the vowel of pay. I, too, suspect that the pronunciation with /z/ is prototypical in the UK while the one with /s/ is prototypical in the US (though not exclusive). This isn't quite the same as the different pronunciations of John (because it is a difference in phoneme incidence) but I think with most people named Theresa that we can attribute the difference the RP/US difference and not worry about transcribing it. The important thing here is that this particular individual apparently insists on one pronunciation, which, in a sense, makes the other pronunciations wrong with her where they wouldn't be with other people named Theresa. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Iff there are good, reliable, real-world sources that state that May has expressed an opinion on this, I think we should cover it in a footnote, but not in the lead. If there are not, I think we should not cover it and let regional variation take care of it, as we do with John Major and all the thousands of other Johns. --John (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Her name was tagged with a request for IPA symbols, so I provided one for her maiden name and current surname. I have held back from adding pronunciation of her first name for the reasons cited in this discussion. I have no objections to removing the pronunciation of her surname, given that it's not an uncommon surname. However, since it's not particularly obtrusive to have the template there, I don't see what harm it can do - even if we agree on a pronunciation of "Theresa", it's not too long. --Hazhk (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Christian democrat?

I've removed the characterisation of May as a 'Christian democrat'. Christian democracy is an ideology/philosophy that has little currency in British politics. It's associated with Christian democratic parties in mainland Europe but it's not an ideological tendency within the British Conservative Party. I simply don't think there's a strong argument that May is a Christian democrat. The FT citation is behind a paywall so I haven't been able to look through it. The opinion piece in the Telegraph doesn't explicitly state that May herself is a Christian democrat. It only tentatively suggests that her government may replace liberalism with Christian democracy; this may be the writer's own preference but the article doesn't seem to back this up with anything other than vague allusions to "Anglican spirituality" and May's own faith. She is an outspoken Christian, but this doesn't make one a Christian democrat! I realise that the 'liberal conservative' label is also based on one opinion, so that might be contested too. In short, I don't think we should introduce European terms into an article about a British politicians. --Hazhk (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Theresa May. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100530071415/http://www.independent.co.uk:80/news/uk/politics/identity-cards-to-be-scrapped-within-100-days-1984447.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/identity-cards-to-be-scrapped-within-100-days-1984447.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141226183911/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exminister-norman-baker-leaks-details-on-home-secretarys-drug-stance-9945643.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exminister-norman-baker-leaks-details-on-home-secretarys-drug-stance-9945643.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008201216/http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk:80/Clarke-hits-childish-remarks/story-13490799-detail/story.html to http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/Clarke-hits-childish-remarks/story-13490799-detail/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100719161511/http://www.spectator.co.uk:80/politics/all/11498/to-all-intents-and-purposes-theresa-may-may-as-well-not-exist.thtml to http://www.spectator.co.uk/politics/all/11498/to-all-intents-and-purposes-theresa-may-may-as-well-not-exist.thtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The relevance of Theresa May's choice in clothes

Hi All

I have been deleted by more than one user for my post referring to a recent news story in The Guardian [1]. The article documents Theresa May's wearing of a pair £995 trousers and £295 trainers in a recent photograph, as well as the journalist's question as to whether this is a sign of her distance from the general population: a question posed to May that she sidestepped.

To my mind this is a relevant story that is of general interest in terms of establishing the social and moral character of the political leadership.

I do not want to enter into an edit war hence, before re-instating the edit I would welcome any objections.

The deletions of my post were based on an opinion, that this was not notable or of general interest.

In response I would argue that it clearly is of sufficient general interest (i) to be published in a broadsheet paper, (ii) be the subject of questions from a political journalist and also (iii) for May herself to ban her colleague Nicky Morgan for commenting on the trousers.

As noted in my response to the persons who unilaterally deleted the post on ground that it was not notable, my post grounded was grounded fact and properly referenced with links to the original article, while the deletion was simply based in an ungrounded assertion that the post was not of general interest. It may well not be of interest to some but there is a fundamental error in mistaking one’s particular opinion (in this case that May's £995 trousers and £295 trainers are not of general interest or notable) for a shared social characteristic.

I respectfully suggest that those who venture that the clothes that politicians' wear is not notable, might first want to read Aristotle's analysis of politics and rhetoric but welcome other opinions.

Irving2000 (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Your addition of the material has been reverted as non-notable trivia by three different editors, whose reverts weren't based just on opinions but on Wikipedia policy. Becaude being a fact is not by and of itself reason to include anything, it also has to be encyclopaedic, since Wikipedia isn't a random collection of facts. Or to quote Wikipedia policy (WP:What Wikipedia is not): "... merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia ...", and "... Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion ...". - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Tom. There are many newspaper articles about the prime minister. An encyclopaedia articles by should not cover all of them. Ground Zero | t 15:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a relevant and important issue as evidence by the continuing report and fall out which is currently disrupting the cabinet, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/11/theresa-may-trousers-row-angry-text-exchange-nicky-morgan, therefore I strongly support the inclusion of this material under Theresa May's profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.218.86 (talk) 10:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

We cannot include every twist and turn of trivial short-term stories like this. We are supposed to take the long historical view. If serious political commentators are still discussing Mrs May's trousers in, say, six months' time, then add it to the article. Otherwise it is just WP:RECENTISM. -- Alarics (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Irving2000 (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC) As you may have noticed, the issue has received continuing extensive coverage, including front pages in Mail and Telegraph and even now has its own moniker "trousergate" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/12/trousergate-dressing-up-brexit-row-tories. I re-iterate that the issue is notable and highly relevant in terms of revealing political character and exposing political fissures.

Opening sentence could be improved

Theresa Mary May, MP (née Brasier;[1] born 1 October 1956) has served as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party since July 2016.

This is a slightly weak and unsatisfactory opening sentence. Where possible, opening sentences should be of the form "X is Y". 109.146.103.149 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The visit in USA

Could you add she will be first to vist our President Donald Trump? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

This is already covered in the "Prime Minister" section. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

There is new missing aspect, just one hour ago - BBC. If it is first time other nuclear power lunched submarine missile at USA. Should we or perhaps is too early to add this achievement? Usually info box require start time but this is unpublished yet secret. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2017

As Prime Minister, May has focused on withdrawing the UK from the European Union. Caolan2 (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

"Go Home" vans

I've added a subsection on the "Go Home" advertising vans, which were a major issue at the time, and the Independent describes as one of "The new Prime Minister's five most controversial moments" [2]. -- The Anome (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2017

Please change;

"As Prime Minister, May has focused on reducing immigration and withdrawing the UK from the European Union."

to

"As Prime Minister, May has focused on withdrawing the UK from the European Union."

because reducing immigration is a consequence of brexit and not a seperate goal. Caolan2 (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate dab page

@Unscintillating: Why do you insist on creating a dab page at Teresa May when exactly the same content already exists at Theresa May (disambiguation)? You have been reverted at least five times ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) by three different editors. I don't understand why you keep doing it. If you disagree that Teresa May is not a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, then open a requested move. Don't just keep hammering on the same pointless edit. — Gorthian (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• See #Hatnote to Teresa May for the current discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)