Talk:Liz Truss

Sources

Upcoming or recent sources that can be used to improve the article Riley-Smith, Ben (2023). The Right to Rule: Thirteen Years, Five Prime Ministers and the Implosion of the Tories. Hodder & Stoughton. ISBN 978-1-39-981029-6. Truss, Liz (2024). Ten Years to Save the West. Biteback Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78-590857-6. Shipman, Tim (2024). Out: How Brexit Got Done and Four Prime Ministers Were Undone. William Collins. ISBN 978-0-00-830894-0. Seldon, Anthony; Meakin, Jonathan (2024). Truss at 10: 49 Days That Changed Britain. Atlantic Books. ISBN 978-1-80-546213-2. Seldon, Anthony; Meakin, Jonathan; Thoms, Illias; Egerton, Tom (2024). The Impossible Office?: The History of the British Prime Minister—Revised and Updated. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-009-42977-1.

Incorrect link for "The Independent"

An article from the Independent is mentioned. However when you click on "The Independent", it takes you to the incorrect wikipedia page for the newspaper/website. Jmacri36 (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Source work name

Hi @Tim O'Doherty, can you explain the reasoning behind this edit please. Although their printed paper newspaper was called The Independent, their web work is simply called Independent. The cites in this article are all of their web work, none are of their print work (which is no longer even published), so why do we use the name of the print work, even though it is not cited? -- DeFacto (talk). 23:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It is nonstandard. It's also internally inconsistent: we have The Daily Telegraph (universally used for quality PM articles) rather than The Telegraph, which is its online brand. This has been through FAC, which examines source formatting. I've done GANs where I've been asked to format the names of works differently: this is a tier above that. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we need consistency, but in my view we should be consistently correct, and not sometimes consistent in name, regardless of correctness. As far as I can see, all of the news media publications being cited in this article are web works, so surely we should use the names used by the publishers of those web works, and not the name of one of their sister publications, or the name of one of their historical predecessors - that would be consistency. Using anything other than the publication's actual published name is just plain misrepresenting the name of the work. That would apply to all the news media web works, including the defunct The Independent's descendent web work, the "Independent", and the The Daily Telegraph's "The Telegraph", yes.

You say using just "Independent" in cites for the name of works that are called just "Independent" is "nonstandard" - where is the standard that you are applying documented? Does it have a look-up table giving the names that are acceptable for each of the news web media works that are likely to be used?

Talking of consistency, I notice that the web work known as "The Telegraph" is referred to as both "the Telegraph", "The Daily Telegraph" in the prose, and "The Daily Telegraph" or "The Sunday Telegraph" in citations. We also have cites of web works called "The Sunday Times" cited as both "The Times" and as "The Sunday Times".

And looking at one of the other PM article you linked in above, in the ADH one, we see in cites the work name correctly given as "The Manchester Guardian" in a cite of the printed newspaper when that was its name, and correctly given as "The Guardian" in cites of the same newspaper after its name change. Is that inconsistent and nonstandard too?

But anyway, what I am trying to understand, is why we should use incorrect, even if historically related, names for web works in this article? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty, a penny for your thoughts on this. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Re paragraph 3: the prose isn't relevant. I've looked through those references and can't find a single example. Can you point one out? Re paragraph 4: if we're treating the Douglas-Home article's Manchester Guardian as the standard to follow on this article, then the Independent sources here before going web-only in 2016 should, by that logic, be the full The Independent. We have two such sources from 2014: should we change those? It certainly branded itself as "The Independent" online then. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty, Re para 3, the references citing the web work called "The Telegraph":

• 1 using the name "The Sunday Telegraph" - {{cite news |last=Diver |first=Tony |date=3 October 2021 |title=Transgender people should not have right to self-identify without medical checks, Liz Truss says |work=[[The Sunday Telegraph]] |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/03/transgender-people-should-not-have-right-self-identify-without/ |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=24 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220730152838/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/03/transgender-people-should-not-have-right-self-identify-without/ |archive-date=30 July 2022}}
• 1 of 14 using the name "The Daily Telegraph" - {{Cite news |last=Yorke |first=Harry |date=29 August 2020 |title=Liz Truss to set out ambition for a 'gold standard' trade deal with Australia |work=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/29/liz-truss-set-ambition-gold-standard-trade-deal-australia/ |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=24 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200829204911/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/29/liz-truss-set-ambition-gold-standard-trade-deal-australia/ |archive-date=29 August 2020}}

Re para 4, you make a good point. I was looking at the current online versions of them - and they are both branded just "Independent". I think we should stick with what they were called when they were first published. And suppress the current versions, leaving just the contemporaneous archive version in the cite perhaps - as who knows what else might have changed?

Thanks for taking the time to respond. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that they self describe as 'The Independent' - see for example their privacy policy (last updated July 2024) at https://www.independent.co.uk/service/privacy-policy-a6184181.html

• At The Independent we respect your privacy and are committed to protecting your personal information. This privacy policy is for visitors to our websites, apps and other digital platforms. It sets out how we collect, use, disclose, and protect personal data that we hold about you. It also gives information on how to exercise your legal rights. In this policy ‘we’ and ‘our’ means Independent Digital News and Media Limited.

Or their cookie policy (also last updated July 2024) at https://www.independent.co.uk/service/cookie-policy-a6184186.html

• If you wish to browse The Independent for free, you can choose to consent to the use of cookies and similar technologies which we will use to serve relevant personalised advertising and to improve our service (including the use of analytics). Please see our Privacy Policy for more information about this.

Ieya (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2024

Change Lord Chancellor to Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain as Shabana Mahmood has it and all LCs should have it. 86.147.210.198 (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Not done – no need, and example cited does not use this term Billsmith60 (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Lord High Chancellor is a former title of the office now known as Lord Chancellor so not in current use. In fact, the Lord Chancellor article begins: The Lord Chancellor, formally titled Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain.... This is Paul (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you're confusing "former" and "formal"! Please note, though, that this IP user is the banned editor "Earl of Sutton Coldfield", AKA "Mr Hall of England". Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes...so I am. It's not a term in common use though. This is Paul (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Blocked editors may not have edit requests in the queue to be considered per the spirit of WP:EVADE. If another editor happens to see these discussions, and happens to agree, they may make the edit at their own discretion. —Sirdog (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

'No longer notable'

I think a discussion is required about removing the bit about Truss attending the Republican Party convention and meeting the new VP nominee. Truss will always be a notable person – like any recent PM, for example – and her article won't suddenly end in July 2024. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I think there's definitely (going to be?) a thread about how Truss has tried to pivot towards various right-wing political and media groups in the US post her premiership, but whether we've got enough to write it yet I don't know. I'd need convincing that "conservative person attends conservative event" is inherently notable, unless (for example) she was specifically invited, or her presence was commented on -- something like 50,000 people came to Milwaukee for the convention. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I suppose my point is as much about her attendance being referenced via a wonderful article in the Independent about British political rejects. Had she met Trump there, like Johnson did (with a photo), that would surely have been notable? Billsmith60 (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure I'm convinced for either of them, especially if the "meeting" is just a handshake and a photo-op: that's pretty WP:ROUTINE business for two high-profile politicians, and political figures routinely travel to events with each other and seek out photographs with each other. If he sat down with her to talk about policy for half an hour, that would be a different story. Similarly, if it were part of a bigger narrative about Truss courting figures like Trump, it would work, but it would also seem a bit orphaned on its own. Others may take a different view, of course. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2024

I have an up to date infopage for Liz Truss.

The Right Honourable Liz Truss
Official portrait, 2022
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
In office 6 September 2022 – 25 October 2022
Monarchs	Elizabeth II Charles III
Deputy	Thérèse Coffey
Preceded by	Boris Johnson
Succeeded by	Rishi Sunak
Leader of the Conservative Party
In office 5 September 2022 – 24 October 2022
Preceded by	Boris Johnson
Succeeded by	Rishi Sunak
Ministerial offices 2012‍–‍2022 Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs In office 15 September 2021 – 6 September 2022 Prime Minister Boris Johnson Preceded by Dominic Raab Succeeded by James Cleverly Minister for Women and Equalities In office 10 September 2019 – 6 September 2022 Prime Minister Boris Johnson Preceded by Amber Rudd Succeeded by Nadhim Zahawi Secretary of State for International Trade President of the Board of Trade In office 24 July 2019 – 15 September 2021 Prime Minister Boris Johnson Preceded by Liam Fox Succeeded by Anne-Marie Trevelyan Chief Secretary to the Treasury In office 11 June 2017 – 24 July 2019 Prime Minister Theresa May Preceded by David Gauke Succeeded by Rishi Sunak Secretary of State for Justice Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain In office 14 July 2016 – 11 June 2017 Monarch Elizabeth II Prime Minister Theresa May Preceded by Michael Gove Succeeded by David Lidington Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs In office 15 July 2014 – 14 July 2016 Prime Minister David Cameron Preceded by Owen Paterson Succeeded by Andrea Leadsom Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Childcare and Education In office 4 September 2012 – 15 July 2014 Prime Minister David Cameron Preceded by Sarah Teather Succeeded by Sam Gyimah
Member of Parliament for South West Norfolk
In office 6 May 2010 – 30 May 2024
Preceded by	Christopher Fraser
Succeeded by	Terry Jermy
Personal details
Born	Mary Elizabeth Truss (1975-07-26) 26 July 1975 Oxford, England
Political party	Conservative (since 1996)
Other political affiliations	Liberal Democrats (until 1996)
Spouse	Hugh O'Leary ​ (m. 2000)​
Children	2
Parent	John Truss (father)
Education	Merton College, Oxford (BA)
Signature

86.147.210.198 (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

For information, the above is block evasion by "Earl of Sutton Coldfield"/"Mr Hall of England". Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Blocked editors may not have edit requests in the queue to be considered per the spirit of WP:EVADE. If another editor happens to see these discussions, and happens to agree, they may make the edit at their own discretion. —Sirdog (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Deputy PM in Infobox

It is incorrect to assert that every other PM's deputy appears there; see Gordon Brown, for instance Billsmith60 (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

His First Secretary of State, equivalent to DPM, is there. TheHandofFear (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Could other users please chip in on a debate Tim O'Doherty and I are having regarding the inclusion of the Deputy PM (DPM) in the Infobox?

It seems clear to me that the DPM should be included, given this is the case with other comparable articles including Keir Starmer, Boris Johnson, Tony Blair and Rishi Sunak.

Tim O'Doherty hasn’t provided any reasoning for the exclusion of DPM, yet continues to revert the inclusion, so I have taken this here in order to avoid edit-warring. TheHandofFear (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly notable enough to be included, as it was the first time both positions were held by a female. This is Paul (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course, Starmer, Johnson, Blair and Sunak's articles are not FAs so modelling this article on those is not a good idea. Per MOS:IB, the infobox should "exclude unnecessary content": that Thérèse Coffey was deputy prime minister from September to October 2022 is unnecessary information for this article's infobox. The deputy prime minister is practically a non-job, only filled a handful of times throughout history (especially for Tory DPMs, although the role has become more important post-Truss, according to Anthony Seldon), and not at all like the American vice president, which is a much more significant and well-defined role. Who was deputy prime minister under Truss is not the type of info needed in the infobox of this biographical article. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with Tim. The title is a bit of a red herring: with a few notable exceptions (Nick Clegg, for instance), the DPM isn't a "number two" or, in any meaningful sense, more important than other major cabinet figures -- the next one down the hierarchy is usually the Chancellor. Given the prominent place of the parameter at the top of the infobox, it isn't WP:DUEWEIGHT to put Coffey up there, given what WP:HQRS say about the relative ranking and prominence of Coffey versus other senior ministers (Kwarteng, for instance) under Truss. Further agreed that "other articles do it" is neither here nor there, since Wikipedia is not a reliable source and those articles, by and large, have undergone no major review or endorsement by the community. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)