Jump to content

Talk:Liz Truss/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Untitled

Rather unbalanced. Buckets of praise. My guess is that most people know her because 'Have I got News for You' regularly show those odd speech snippets about cheese imports and opening up new pork markets. Surely warrants a mention.78.151.65.80 (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per MOS:IDENTITY concerns and apparent mixed usage in RS. No such user (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


Elizabeth Truss → Liz Truss – Per WP:COMMONNAME, see for example: the BBC, the Telegraph, the Guardian, Farmers Weekly, the Independent, ITV, and the Express. For the same reason we use 'Bill Clinton' not 'William Jefferson Clinton'. Ebonelm (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

MOS-IDENTITY states When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources; so it appears that it actually argues against this line of arguement.--174.91.187.80 (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
It hasn't been demonstrated that 'most reliable sources' use 'Liz Truss'. Indeed, the most reliable sources, her personal website, and indeed the British parliament website, specifically make it clear that she should be addressed as 'Elizabeth Truss'. Therefore, see the next bit "if it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses." And, indeed, the BBC, cited above as using 'Liz', uses 'Elizabeth' in this article. Likewise, The Guardian is seen to use 'Elizabeth' here. Likewise, The Daily Telegraph uses 'Elizabeth' here in the body of an article, but 'Liz' in the headline, suggesting that 'Liz' might be being used as headlinese or to save space. What is clear is that above pronouncements that she is 'universally known' as 'Liz' are rubbish. Given the mixed usage in RS, we should default to the style used by the most reliable sources for a BLP, as I specified above. RGloucester — ☎ 03:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Elizabeth Truss. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 16:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 24 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. per WP:SNOW: 8 in favour and none opposed, and supporting evidence provided. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


Elizabeth Truss → Liz Truss – While the previous RM from three years ago (above) did not result in a move, I believe her WP:COMMONNAME is Liz Truss. While her wesbite is elizabethtruss.com, she identifies herself as Liz Truss throughout "I'm Liz Truss, Member of Parliament for South West Norfolk..." , ditto for her Twitter profile too. And pretty much every single news story refers to her as Liz, and not Elizabeth. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The discussion has closed prematurely, and I am not going to disagree, but just to note that the Parliament website still says that she is to be addressed as "Elizabeth Truss". Perhaps she has forgotten to change that? Or perhaps she uses "Elizabeth" in formal contexts, and "Liz" in informal contexts? So, I suppose Wikipedia uses an informal register, like? 213.205.198.253 (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

New Politico EU profile (for possible article expansion)

https://www.politico.eu/article/liz-truss-britain-new-iron-lady-uk-conservatives/ Go Phightins! 11:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

First if you don't count her predecessor?

So she's the first woman to be Lord Chancellor, if you don't count the previous woman to be Lord Chancellor. Is there any reason to not count her? This is in reference to the beginning of the fourth paragraph of the lead at time of writing. I'm hesitant to make the change because I'm wondering if the distinction is somehow justified. 108.174.175.69 (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

So the one previous is Eleanor of Provence in 1253. Back then our government was very different, the Parliament of England was more an occasional meeting of Baron's advising the king, Lord Chancellor was a position appointed by a king. It was only during the reign of Edward I (her and Henry III child) that we saw the Model Parliament which included representatives of major towns. So the role today is so different that it's not really comparable. --Salix alba (talk): 03:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I had noticed the time gap and was thinking of changing it to say something along the lines of her being second only to somebody who lived nearly a thousand years ago in a vastly different society. However I hadn't checked the wording used by sources before asking, now that I have I've got no complaint.108.174.175.69 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

In the last para. of the lede…

…it says: “She is the first female Conservative Foreign Secretary and second British Foreign Secretary.” I understand the first phrase, but the second one makes no sense to me at all. Boscaswell talk 04:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Monarch

Leadership. It is important to mark her appointment within the Era of the monarch she she swore allegiance was to. In this case Elizabeth II. 2600:100C:B23E:9D1A:C5A3:5B4D:6BF1:60BC (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2022

Foreign Secretary (...-present), last para beginning "On 10 February 2021, Truss met with her Russian counterpart" should read: On 10 February 2022 Geschichtsburo (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Cited information that was removed

Is this information with this citation alright to include on the page?

On 5 April 2022, it was revealed that Truss was among 405 MPs who have charged energy bills to the public purse by claiming expenses for their heating bills since April 2019. The investigation revealed that Truss had claimed £1,548 for gas and electricity since April 2019.[1] Helper201 (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll say the same thing I said on my talk page. We are talking about a £1,548 charge. And that scandal is not relevant in this discussion at all; that scandal was about charges during the 2000s, and Truss isn't mentioned there at all (she wasn't even in office yet). WP:ONUS, not everything verifiable deserves inclusion. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
So what charge is acceptable? This seems like a subjective imposition to meet your own personal criteria for what is an amount deemed notable enough. We as editors should not be imposing arbitrary criteria on our own personal subjective views. Helper201 (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
It has obviously been deemed notable enough that it has been published in reliable and notable source and she has been specifically named with the given exact amount given. Helper201 (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
The amount seems to me to be fine to include. Readers will have subjective interpretations of whether this is a large or small or appropriate or inappropriate amount, but offering that information provides context for people to draw whatever conclusion they will. Jujueyeball (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't know whether this source is considered reliable and notable though, not familiar with it. Jujueyeball (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Not sure why you retreated and didn't engage with me on my talk page, since you came to me first to engage in dialogue. I am maintaining that this is a matter of WP:ONUS. Your citation you posted states that 405 of 650 MPs incurred similar expenses. I do not think it would be encyclopedic at all to mention these types of charges because apparently, previously unbeknownst to me, are incredibly common. There was no wrong doing here as far as I can see; this is permitted under law. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
If it is legal and commonplace i don't know why it would be worth including; I thought the original question was only about including the exact £ figure or not based on your the initial response. I don't know if it is legal, I am not a UK lawyer or UK-based. Jujueyeball (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I made a mistake with taking it to your talk page in the first place and should of placed it here initially, so that's my fault. Yes, it does mention that, but out of those MPs it also specifically mentions this one by name with their exact amount given. She is also a high-ranking MP with a cabinet position in the government as Foreign Secretary. Therefore, her actions, rightly or wrongly, are going to be more publicised and come under greater scrutiny, especially if she is claiming money from the public purse. What is right of wrong is for the reader to decide. You have not explained how this is unenclapedic. As I mentioned on your talk page, the definition of an encyclopaedia is very broad, being "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically". I certainly think this can fit within that. As Jujueyeball said, it’s up to the reader to impart their own personal opinion based upon the factual statements we provide here. I don't think imparting this information to readers breaks any guidelines or should be blocked. Helper201 (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
We do not make edits to Wikipedia based on the "definition" of an encyclopedia, but rather based on user-consensus gathered guidelines. I have already indicated that this would fall under WP:ONUS, in that not every piece of verifiable information is worth including in Wikipedia. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Do not include without evidence of wider coverage. The amount is secondary by far to the controversy and coverage of the issue. That I could only find one other source with a bit of Googling (the Express; via "liz truss" electricity gas) suggests that this is not a particularly notable event. — HTGS (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
  • Do not include without evidence of wider coverage.. MPs are allowed to claim any 'additional' expenses they incur if they need to operate a home near Westminster, in addition to any home they have further away. The fact of her having actually claimed -relatively modest- heating and lighting costs has attracted almost zero public/press attention. This in not in the same league as the expenses scandal of about 10/15 years ago, where both the spirit and letter of the rules (and laws?) was broken and very substantial sums were claimed on frivolous or dubious things all of which received very widespread press coverage. Unsurprisingly, Truss's keeping moderately warm has received very little coverage. Pincrete (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Do not include without evidence of wider coverage. If that's all the sourcing you have got then inclusion is giving WP:UNDUE weight to a very minor point. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Williams, Martin (5 April 2022). "Revealed: MPs have claimed £420,000 to heat their second homes since 2019". openDemocracy. Retrieved 10 April 2022.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2022

Can someone please reinstate the Liz Truss affair information. Someone keeps removing this. Only fair the public knows this. 212.36.171.154 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done There is an ongoing discussion on this subject in the section above this one. — Czello 13:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Birthdate removal

@Toddst1: concerning your edit. The birthdate is in the source if you click on the archived link in the ref. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

My bad. Thanks for pointing it out. Toddst1 (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Mary Elizabeth Truss

Liz Truss was born Mary Elizabeth Truss and that is what the article should state, just like James Keir Hardie, James Gordon Brown, Arthur Neville Chamberlain, etc. It’s not that uncommon for someone to use his or her middle name.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/29/liz-truss-cheese-karaoke-10-things-you-may-not-know

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58575895.amp

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/liz-truss-tory-leadership-prime-minister-b2142113.html?amp

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-interview-my-mum-would-vote-for-me-im-not-sure-about-dad-35wvzcpsr

The FreeDMB shows a record for a Mary Elizabeth Truss.

There’s really no issue here so I don’t know why some people are trying to create a problem. FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Read the above section, "Mary Elizabeth or Elizabeth Mary"! There is a problem: reliable sources report different things. You've listed some for MET; there are plenty of others for EMT. EddieHugh (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Her birth record speaks for itself. https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/information.pl?r=255275521:2401&d=bmd_1653949805--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
For a while the media used to claim that Tyson Fury was born “Luke Tyson Fury” instead of “Tyson Luke Fury”. So what? It can happen. There’s no evidence that Truss was born “Elizabeth Mary Truss” - her birth record is available online and it is a fact that she was born “Mary Elizabeth Truss” so why are you trying to make a problem that is not there?--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The fact that some journalists have decided to publish her name as "Elizabeth Mary Truss" is totally irrelevant. There are enough reliable sources, including her birth record, which prove without any doubt that she was born "Mary Elizabeth Truss". There's absolutely no reason for there to be any footnote, but rather her birth name be used and "Liz Truss" to be left as the name of the article since Truss is well known by the short form of her middle name.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Please use the existing heading on her name here on Talk. There is no need for this separate one. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Extramarital Affair

<nowiki>I added relevant information to her personal life section, with citations from reputable third-party news sources, which describes the affair she had for 18 months with Tory MP Mark Field. This was removed without explanation. This info is on Field's wikipedia for example. What reason is there to preclude this pertinent and relevant information from her currently admittedly extremely short biographical section in 'Personal life'? Irishpolitical (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The text on the affair has been added and removed a couple of times now over the last few days. In the first instance, an oblique reference was made to a 2014 BLPN discussion, which while somewhat hard to read due to several walls of text seemed to have a rough consensus against inclusion of the affair. However if a week is a long time in politics, then 8 years is presumably many political lifetimes, and as consensus can change a discussion on whether or not to include it should take place.
Pinging @JamesHawkes0161, Milesofhelen, Czello, TwistedSnowflake, Beorhtwulf, and Billsmith60: as editors who have all made additions or reverts over some form of this text recently. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The affair is not in Mark Fields article for the same BLPN discussion reason as not on here. I based my decision to remove it off that and I still think that decision should be stuck to. JamesHawkes0161 (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, there have been a couple of discussions on WP:BLPN about this issue, in which the arguments for whether and where this information should be included was explored in considerable detail. A consensus was attained that the issue should be mentioned, but as part of the Parliamentary Candidature section, rather than the Personal Life section. The justification for this seems to be just as strong today as it did then (in particular, part of the reason is quite nuanced, relating to the relevance of the reaction to what was originally reported in the Mail newspaper rather than the affair itself). I think that the existing WP:BLPN consensus should be maintained, but I certainly think that, given it was previously resolved in a collaborative manner on the WP:BLPN, the article should not be unilaterally changed by individual editors - especially as her recent higher profile may attract attention from those who are keen to make overtly partisan points to any part of the article. TwistedSnowflake (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
TwistedSnowflake could you link the other discussions from BLPN on this? I tried searching for them, and the only one that came up was the one I've linked from 2014. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Sure, I think this is the other one. TwistedSnowflake (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Cheers. It's a difficult thing to place for sure. On the one hand it's definitely connected to her parliamentary candidature, because of the objections to her selection. On the other it is also unquestionably a part of her personal life. I'd suggest maybe giving it either its own subsection because of how it crosses multiple biographical sections, but that would likely be giving it undue weight and have inherent balance issues. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I think it is helpful to consider how this story emerged. The initial 'reveal' was in the Mail newspapers in 2006; she had just been elected as a councillor at the time the story appeared, although she had not been elected to anything at the time the affair is reported to have taken place. When she was selected as the candidate for SW Norfolk in 2009, the Mail repeated the allegations and this generated a reaction from a minority (less than 25% as indicated by the subsequent confidence vote) of the Association members. This reaction to the allegations (rather than the allegations themselves) is the key point of why this was reported more widely in the media, including among more reliable sources than the Mail. And, as far as I can see from the previous discussions on the BLP Noticeboard, is why it was deemed that the Parliamentary Candidature section was the most appropriate place for it to feature in the article.
As you mention, the (second) BLP Noticeboard discussion was long, with strong points made on all sides, and the consensus that was reached seems reasonable to me.
At the time, it was Field (as an elected MP) who was, as an MP and her 'mentor', in the position of (relative) influence - we don't know who initiated it (and presumably it was consensual) but the power dynamic at the time and additional inclusion in the Personal Life section would make me uneasy, with unfounded inferences appearing from time to time over the years. For example, an editor has added this morning that she was caught having an affair in 2006, when in reality it had ceased a year earlier. As an issue, we have to be especially cautious, particularly in relation to her husband and daughters who were presumably innocent parties in all this. I am not in favour of mentioning in the Truss article that Field's marriage ended in divorce as this implies that Truss alone was directly responsible for this, but one of the original Mail articles (I think) suggested that his marriage was in trouble anyway at that point, so we would be in danger of conflating an issue to have had a more direct outcome than is justified by facts that were reliably reported. In making references to the original Mail article, there appears to have been a snowball effect in even the more reliable sources which have made assumptions about the context and reality of what is alleged to have happened.
So I would advocate maintaining the consensus that was reached in the 2014 BLP Noticeboard discussion. Hxb1984 (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm late getting back this but thank you for tagging me. I support mention of the affair with Mark Field in Truss's article, both in the section on her early political career and in the personal life section. And it should be in Field's article as well. It's a matter of public record and political significance, and these are public figures. I am concerned that those trying to remove it are either attempting to sanitise Wikipedia's presentation of Liz Truss or are interpreting BLP policies in a way that shows excessive deference to subjects of articles. At the time of this comment, it looks like we have something suitable in the article, and I hope it stays that way. Beorhtwulf (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I see that this affair is covered in detail in the 'parliamentary candidature' section, with lots of sources quoted. It could justify a paragraph of its own, though. I'll watch this Talk page to see what others say. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I think the coverage in the "parliamentary candidature" is brief, it should mention that Field was her mentor at the time, and that while Truss' marriage survived the scandal (it was covered extensively at the time), Field's marriage ended in divorce. There should also be a link to Mark Field's WP article? 78.19.224.254 (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that a brief mention, not necessarily in its own paragraph, is warranted. Bellowhead678 (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

An editor recently placed content about her extramarital affair again into the "Personal life" section of the article. It's already in the "Political career" section under the "Parliamentary candidature" subheading. My own view is I don't think it needs to be mentioned twice in the article and once is sufficient. I've therefore tonight removed it from the "Personal life" section and kept it in the "Political career" section until there's more of a consensus that it should be in two different sections of the article. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I hate to ask this, but do we need an RfC on which section to mention the affair in? There seems to be a somewhat even distribution between editors who want it in the "Political career" section and those who want it in the "Personal life" section. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Surely it should be non-controversial to allow repetition, in the "personal life" section, of what is stated in the "political career" section? It seems there is consensus to mention the affair in the career section because it's widely reported in that context and impossible to provide accurate coverage without mentioning it. However, many readers may skip directly to the "personal life" section and be surprised to find no coverage at all there. It seems reasonable to restate in that section the basic facts that were mentioned in the career section. I can't see any policy-based reason to continually revert additions to one particular section where the topic is already covered in the article, that should only be a stylistic decision, and in that regard repetition would better serve the readers----Pontificalibus 06:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Surely it should be non-controversial to allow repetition, in the "personal life" section, of what is stated in the "political career" section? Evidently, based on the good faith contributions here and reverts to the article, it seemingly is controversial to repeat this in the personal life section. The editors who are opposed to doing so cite the 2014 and 2013 BLPN discussions for where this consensus emerged.
Conversely, I strongly think we're in the Consensus can change zone here, even if we are currently deadlocked by numbers between those who want it only in the "political career" section and those who want it in the "personal life" section. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense to me Billsmith60 (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

An editor has again placed the content in the "Personal life" section. I agreed with points that JamesHawkes0161 and TwistedSnowflake made. I think mentioning the affair once in the article is sufficient and repetition in another section doesn't seem essential. With regard to the point "Many readers may skip directly to the 'Personal life' section and be surprised to find no coverage at all there" – the former PM John Major had a four-year extramarital affair with Conservative MP Edwina Currie which created a large amount of news coverage when the affair was revealed. But the affair is not currently mentioned in the "Personal life" section of the WP article on Major. It's only given one sentence in the "Early parliamentary career (1979–1987)" section of Major's article. So if readers don't find coverage of the affair that Truss had in the "Personal life" section, I think they would have the intelligence to look at other sections if they are keen to see the content about the affair. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with this view. In particular, as well as what was written earlier, I don't see that there is a consensus to change what was agreed in the earlier 2013 and 2014 WP:BLPN discussions, especially as her recent higher profile has encouraged some editors on all sides to add all sorts of content which is WP:UNDUE. TwistedSnowflake (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Her affair is intertwined with her politics. Essentially, the fight against showing it is politically motivated. The fight to highlight it is politically motivated. With most people sitting on one side or another, it is difficult to not believe some editors have political motivations. What I don't know is what is entirely right, but I do know that currently the affair is essentially hidden favouring Liz Truss. AlexHunterIS (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not hidden. This discussion topic has addressed this matter at length. The affair is mentioned twice, in the career and personal life sections. It doesn't go into the Intro., and I'm no Truss supporter Billsmith60 (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Medicinal cannabis factory

What does this minor constituency matter have to do with her political positions on environmental policy? It might warrant a mention in an article on the factory, if one were created, but it certainly has nothing to do with environmental policies or Truss's politics. For example there's no indication that any change to the definition of a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 was contemplated. This paragraph should simply be deleted. ----Pontificalibus 08:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks for removing. Bellowhead678 (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

"Radon Liz"

Liz Truss is referred to regularly by the Guardian's Parliamentary sketch writer John Crace as 'Radon Liz'(i.e. as a nickname). I accessed the Wikipedia article to find out what this refers to but there is no mention of it whatever that I can see. 88.107.17.198 (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't sound a significant enough detail to include in an encyclopedia article, it certainly doesn't qualify as a widely-used nickname. Crace also used to call Boris "the Suspect" and "the Convict" but we similarly don't include that.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
@User:88.107.17.198 I think John is just calling her toxic cos razon is hazardous Stephanie921 (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Update

She is now PM - should there be a mention on the Main Page ITN - and should there be a measure of page protection for a few days? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

No she isn’t. She is leader of the Conservative Party and so is expected to become PM tomorrow. Until she is invited to form a government, Boris Johnson remains PM. 87.244.95.250 (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
@User:Jackiespeel The article is currently page-protected. But once it expires tomorrow, I don't think it should be protected for a few days more unless people vandalise the page, and idk if that's gonna happen or not Stephanie921 (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Written shortly after the announcement - so a suitable time to consider suchmatters. Jackiespeel (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand what u mean @User:Jackiespeel pls could u elaborate Stephanie921 (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
The announcement of LT being elected as party leader. Jackiespeel (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Ik but idk what u were saying was written afterwards and what it's a suitable time to consider @User:Jackiespeel Stephanie921 (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

No longer Foreign Sec

Boris has resigned, so Truss is no longer Foreign Sec/Equalities Minister. 195.89.72.19 (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Her worth.

How did she accrue an 8.4 million pound fortune ? 185.69.144.27 (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Ayanda 185.69.144.27 (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Her budget constraints reduced water pollution improvements

Water pollution 185.69.144.27 (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

How did she accrue a fortune of 8.4 million pounds

Personal worth. 185.69.144.27 (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

If you have sources for any of your claims you are welcome to share them 87.244.95.250 (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 September 2022 (2)

Liz Truss is no longer incumbent as foreign secretary as of becoming Prime Minister. The position is vacant and therefore the information under her picture should he edited as such. Timceharris (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: @Timceharris Do you have a reliable source that says she has resigned? If not untill she appoints a Foreign secretary, she is assumed to be in charge of that post. Venkat TL (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

She greenlighted gas storage closure reducing capacity by 70%

Gas 185.69.144.27 (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

185.69.144.27, if you have reliable source. Present it here. Thou shall not make allegations here without providing a reliable source. --Venkat TL (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Hugh O'Leary

Is the newly created Hugh O'Leary article about Liz Truss's husband warranted? I don't think so. I think it should be nominated for deletion. 2A02:2F0F:B0FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:C62E (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Not a hugh issue...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
In line with other Spouses of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, yes, I believe it is warranted. TrottieTrue (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Electoral history section

Should there be an Electoral History section on Liz Truss article ?

I wouldn't include constituency results on either article. I think this info is better off in a separate article, as an article on a PM is likely to already be much longer than the average politician's. However, general election results (an overall summary, not for the constituency) and leadership contest results are probably relevant.—TrottieTrue (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
@TrottieTrue being a PM, doesn't make her MP elections any less relevant. The page can be longer for PM, but these sections with tables are relevant and informative for the reader Venkat TL (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I think having the heading "Electoral history" followed by the main template (like in this version) is sufficent for redirecting readers to another page for those to see the details surrounding her electoral history. This article is already long, and is going to be even longer as her premiership continues. Also do not think it is worth having full consistency results on Johnson's article FWIW.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
For the meantime, for the lack of WP:CONSENSUS per WP:ONUS I am removing it from this page.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
And you have been reverted. Please check the rules of WP:SPINOFF first. The fork discussion should have happened first. As far as I can see, there was no consensus discussion to WP:SPINOFF this page. If there was, point me to it. Some one did a bold split, it was reverted and now we discuss per WP:BRD. A consensus can emerge. This stays till then. Venkat TL (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
@Venkat TL: There was no "electoral history" section on this two days ago [4]. I made a new article and linked it on this page. If you do not think that article should exist start a merge or AfD discussion. The content you added today to this article has been disuputed, therefore per WP:ONUS (The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.) it should be removed in absence of consensus.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
@Spy-cicle, If you sincerely believe her electoral history is not notable, you can WP:CSD the page Electoral history of Liz Truss. I have no objections if that gets deleted. Her bio need to have a section on electoral history, as is the standard, and if you wish to stray from the standard BIO format, you need to have consensus discussion first. That is my understanding of WP:ONUS as it applies here. Venkat TL (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
@Venkat TL: Her bio need to have a section on electoral history, as is the standard, and if you wish to stray from the standard BIO format, you need to have consensus discussion first. We decide things here on a page-by-page basis (WP:CONSENSUS). Please link me a policy or MoS guideline that says he have full electoral history on British polictian articles. Otherwise, you need consensus for this page you cannot just cite a vague "bio format". The content you added has been disputed thus you need to obtain consenus before readding it.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
@Spy-cicle Alright, if there is no consensus to add a section, then the link to CFORK article should also not be added till a consensus emerges. This should also wait, till we have a consensus. per WP:ONUS. Please wait for others to join the thread. Both of us have made our opinions and disagreement clear. Please refer to BoJo and its talk page for existing standard. Also check the length of BoJo article. Venkat TL (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Electoral history section : General election

Should the Electoral History section on Liz Truss article contain the result tables (as shown in this revision) on "General election"? Note : There is a forked page Electoral history of Liz Truss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  • Yes result tables on General election should be added and not be removed from this page, even if there exists a separate Electoral history article. See Boris Johnson#Electoral_performance_for_the_House_of_Commons for example. Due to WP:PAGESIZE rules, a separate electoral history article is not needed for Liz Truss, but others have created it and I am ok with it. However it is wrong to cull this page of most important bits of the electoral history. The page readers are expected to be looking for this information on how she got elected as MP and it is unfair to force them to click multiple pages. Venkat TL (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Not sure about whether her constituency results need including in full at the Liz Truss article, but it doesn't overly bother me. The only thing missing then is her council election results, which are at the electoral history article. The Electoral history section of the Liz Truss article is thus incomplete. The heading would lead readers to think it includes everything. Including the council election results would then make the Electoral history of Liz Truss article a bit unnecessary, since it would just mirror the whole section. Given the likelihood of the Liz Truss article increasing in size, I would be in favour of culling the electoral history from the Liz Truss article. The results of the Conservative leadership election are relevant here, but the results in her constituency (and council) are less so IMO. TrottieTrue (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
TrottieTrue I have started, #Electoral history section to discuss that. I dont mind if there is another article on her electoral history, but despite that the General election and the PM (party election) need to be here. Venkat TL (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • No Her consistency results are already summarised in prose and further numerical tables can be left on the separate electoral history page. Moreover I disagree with the sentiment that it is "it is unfair to force them to click multiple pages" since a) they can already read the summarised results in prose on this page and b) if they do want to see a more detailed breakdown it will only take one click to one page.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

No: for the same reasons as outlined by Spy-cicle. Also to keep the article to a manageable size Billsmith60 (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Billsmith60 We have existing rules for deciding what is big and what is manageable. It is not based on individual whims. Please follow WP:SIZERULE. Venkat TL (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 September 2022

Add "March" next to 2022 in her infobox caption. This is from the same year she would go on to be pm, but it was before she began her tenure today. Iamoutofusernameideas (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Iamoutofusernameideas. Next time it would also be helpful to provide your source. Even if the information is just available in the image metadata, stating that here helps editors implement it faster. Cheers. --N8wilson 🔔 16:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Electoral history section : 2022 Conservative Party leadership election (UK) Results

Should the Electoral History section on Liz Truss article contain the result table (as shown in this revision) about "2022 Conservative Party leadership election"? Note : There is a forked page Electoral history of Liz Truss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  • Yes the result table of 2022 Conservative Party leadership election should not be removed from this page, even if there exists a separate Electoral history article. Even though it was a party election. It is important and consequential, because this is how she became the PM. Due to WP:PAGESIZE rules, a separate electoral history article is not needed for Liz Truss, but others have created it and I am ok with it. However it is wrong to cull this page of most important bits of the electoral history. The page readers are expected to be looking for this information on how she got elected as PM and it is unfair to force them to click multiple pages. Venkat TL (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Fair point. It isn’t crucial to the article.—TrottieTrue (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Professional career

In 'Professional career', a citation is asked for. Finding her saying all the things in that sentence might be difficult. On the website 'ConservativeHome' there is a list of articles from 2008 that show her views. However, ConservativeHome is described as a blog, though these articles are more than blog entries. The Reform site linked to no longer exists. https://conservativehome.com/tag/elizabeth-truss/page/2/ Richard Nowell (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 September 2022 (3)

Add a [by whom?] tag in front of "described" in this sentence: "Truss has been described as having a "hawkish" foreign policy stance towards China and Russia and has called for Britain to reduce economic dependency on both countries." Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) Please ping me when replying. 16:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Done, but I don't ping – or know how to. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 Done per above. Just closing the request template here to clear it off of automated lists that track these. Thanks @Dialmayo and Billsmith60:. (See WP:PING, or the {{ping}} template) --N8wilson 🔔 16:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
There are many sources describing her as hawkish, but to find who first said it will be difficult. Recently, The South China Morning Post has:

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3191166/will-liz-truss-live-hawkish-language-china-if-she-becomes-britains-next and The Asian Times: https://asiatimes.com/2022/09/uks-truss-likely-to-pick-a-fight-with-china describing her as such.Richard Nowell (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I added some references for this claim before I saw this talk page decision. The fact that she is a hawk on Russia and China doesn't seem to be in dispute by any reliable sources (some also mention the EU, and others specifically mention the Ukraine war - though I think that's covered by the hawkishness on Russia claim). QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks good work :) Richard Nowell (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Caption

I've changed Liz to Elizabeth, as per her official MP page – unless policies dictate otherwise? Please revise if this is the case Billsmith60 (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I see that I was incorrect to use 'Elizabeth Truss MP' as per WP:COMMONNAME – 'Liz' is correct, in accordance with policy Billsmith60 (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

*Not* Prime Minister-elect

Liz Truss is not, as stated in the lede, the "Prime Minister-elect". There is no such thing, officially, unofficially, or otherwise. She is the newly elected leader of the Conservative Party and she is expected to be invited to form a government tomorrow, 6 September. Until then, she is the party leader and Foreign Secretary, nothing more. 212.221.110.6 (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Neither is she the Prime Minister-designate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.221.110.6 (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Johnson has said he will resign as PM tomorrow and Truss is the leader of the largest party in the Commons. These facts together means she is the de facto Prime Minister-designate. There is no official title of 'Prime Minister-designate', but the UK does not have a codified constitution and there are many offices, roles and titles which exist by convention rather than anything official. Also, there is past precedent as Johnson in 2019 and May in 2016 were given the title Prime Minister-designate in their inboxes on Wikipedia. --Philip Stevens (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
    It is an informal title, used in Wikipedia *Because* reliable sources use it. The readers can understand what it means. Venkat TL (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    It’s not an informal title, it’s not anything. It shouldn’t be used as it shows a wholly faulty understanding of the British Constitution.
    until she is PM, she is not PM 87.244.95.250 (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The most accurate way to describe the status would be "presumptive incoming Prime Minister". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.24.235 (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"served since September 2022"

I feel this is too vague and it should be updated to the exact day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 18:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 19:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs)

Agree. I am boldly making the change, as I feel the specific date is especially important due to it having occurred only 2 days before the death of the long-reigning monarch.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 03:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

"Pork markets" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pork markets and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 9#Pork markets until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. —Bagumba (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 September 2022

Change "Truss" to "Sus" 89.204.135.250 (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. P M C 22:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Stephanie921 (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Seriously RayAdvait (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
@User:89.204.135.250 Lmao after that visit to Lizzy u were definitely on to something Stephanie921 (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Mary Elizabeth or Elizabeth Mary

I have read that she was born Mary but was always called by her middle name Elizabeth. Does anyone know anything more about this? 77.98.160.139 (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

She mentioned it in a Daily Mail article some years ago, however other sources (including one cited as a source for her name) give it as "Elizabeth Mary". There's no evidence to suggest that her account is inaccurate, she may simply have decided to be known as Elizabeth Mary at some point later in her life. Wizened Grumbler (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
freeBMD has a Mary Elizabeth Truss born in 1975 but not a "Elizabeth Mary". Nedrutland (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not regard the Daily Mail as a reliable source Billsmith60 (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

But those are Truss's own words, not the publication itself. Alextheconservative (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. That paper is not a reliable source Billsmith60 (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

We still need proper sources for this. The current one states Elizabeth Mary Truss, but we're stating Mary Elizabeth Truss. EddieHugh (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@EddieHugh: What do you mean by "proper sources"? It appears there is a lot of contradiction, even in sources that are normally high-quality. e.g. The Guardian says Mary Elizabeth, while the Financial Times says Elizabeth Mary. We may simply have to give both.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
There were some improper ones! From the Mail on Sunday, for example. I've added a note about the sources not agreeing. Journalists probably look here first if asked to write an introductory article on someone, so it's better not to favour one name over the other. EddieHugh (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
As suggested, the FT source uses what was on Wikipedia at the time it was written here; the Guardian and Independent ones from the last 2 weeks also used what we had at the time. Such is our power! What do we want her name to be...? We'll have to wait for something definitive... EddieHugh (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

So why did you go ahead and unilaterally change the article to "Elizabeth' instead of leaving M E Truss till the matter is resolved? Am I missing domething here? Billsmith60 (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Because we known that she is Elizabeth, but not if she's ME or EM. And, as suggested above, writers (yes, even for respected publications) will copy what's here. The danger is that reliable sources will copy what's here and then we'll use those RS to back up what's here... but without knowing what sequence her names are actually in. We're not claiming that ET is her full name; in fact, we're very clearly stating that her full name is in doubt. This is preferable to guessing what information is correct. EddieHugh (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough 👍 Billsmith60 (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Plenty of sources state that she was born Mary Elizabeth Truss. That’s also what is on a birth record. She has even said so herself during an interview:

Five-year-old Liz Truss had a complaint to make on her first day at school. Each of the new pupils had been allotted a name-badge in the shape of a fish to pin on to their jumpers. Liz’s parents had christened her Mary – which was the name on her badge – but at home she was always known by her middle name, Elizabeth. ‘I was just aghast… [I thought] how can you do that to me?’ She marched up to the teacher and told her this was not an acceptable state of affairs. Did the teacher give her a new badge? ‘Of course,’ Liz says now, as if it should have been obvious that no other outcome would have been acceptable. There is a short pause. She glances down at a wilting plate of padron peppers she has just ordered for lunch. ‘I think I just wrote on the back of the other badge.’https://www.you.co.uk/liz-truss-interview-2019/

--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Nope, that's part of the Mail on Sunday, which isn't a reliable source. See WP:RSP. EddieHugh (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Proquest returns 35 results for "Mary Elizabeth Truss" and 19 for "Elizabeth Mary Truss". Some of them are duplicates (and include the Daily Mail) – not definitive. EddieHugh (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you calling Truss a liar? She gave an interview and explained what happened when she was a kid because of how her teacher chose to call her. Anyway, “Mary Elizabeth Truss” born in 1975 in October is what is on her birth record. https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/information.pl?r=255275521:2401&d=bmd_1653949805--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
No, I'm following the Wikipedia consensus that the Mail on Sunday isn't a reliable source; in fact it's deprecated. See Wikipedia:MAILONSUNDAY. FreeBMD might be a reliable source, but that page states that that person was born in September 1975. Currently (!is this also wrong?!) we have sources for her being born in July 1975. EddieHugh (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Wow. Are you really just trolling here or what? That was when her birth record was registered.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Apologies on FreeBMD – I believe you're right (I haven't used it before). We still need more to link it with this person definitively, or at least more people on this talk page to agree that this is sufficient. EddieHugh (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you are using a fallacious argument? You are moving the goalposts. There are more than enough reliable sources, including a birth record (which is quite clearly the same person), which clearly state that she was born Mary Elizabeth Truss.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I've added a note to a duplicate talk item here to use this existing thread ‐ otherwise it'll be very difficult to keep track of 'consensus'. In the meantime, I've noted not to use the diminutive form of her name. Perhaps others could keep an eye on this in the article. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

This is beyond ridiculous. She, like many other people, chooses to use her middle name, what exactly is the issue here? Truss was born Mary Elizabeth Truss, but since being very young has always been known by the short form of her middle name. Big WOW.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I've gone through this thread and it is very clear that no existing source can be relied on. I believe that, as 'FriendlyFerret' stresses, she is indeed 'M.E. Truss' and uses her second name as many do. I'm trying Tory Central Office (to ask her private office) and will let an administrator see any email reply I receive. However, until – and indeed if – a definitive source of that reliability is found, I recommend keeping the article as it now reads with 'EddieHugh's' helpful note. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The BMD Wiki citation is found on the BMD entry info page and is: "Index entry". FreeBMD. ONS. Retrieved 12 August 2022. . From there you can download the original source in varying formats. "TRUSS MARY ELIZABETH GRASBY OXFORD 20 2898" is the official entry. Richard Nowell (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
This 'debate' does not do Wikipedia proud - far from it. At the moment I am looking at a (scanned) .pdf of the relevant original source. What journalists, editors or interested parties spout is, as far as I can tell, irrelevant. The downloaded .pdf and .jpgs from the Birth Records show the name Mary Elizabeth Truss. That is the name she was given when registered. What else is needed? Richard Nowell (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, this debate does indeed reflect well on Wikipedia: the article would have been inaccurate without it and the specific research done. Now that the correct Free BMD record has been identified by the above post (and not the 'System Error' I saw previously), I believe that we can change the article to "Mary Elizabeth Truss" with a note to that particular source. Definitely, an index document shows that a 'Mary Elizabeth Truss', born from July-Sep 1975 to a mother previously called 'Grasby' [a great Yorkshire name!], was registered in Oxford. There has been no response to my query sent to the Tory Party or Truss' Westminster office. I'll leave changing the text to "EddieHugh" or another editor that, like me, required a stronger source. Her mother's maiden name of Grasby should also be updated. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I would be up for adding the citation. Wiki is enlivened by such debates, but this appeared to be beyond that. Now we can go and enjoy the sunshine, safe in the knowledge that according to the register of births linked to, she is Mary Elizabeth :) Richard Nowell (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank god common sense prevailed.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Genes Reunited is usually easier to use than FreeBMD, and is useful as a control/comparison, although in this case the names are reversed for the marriage entry (this search link may prove to be volatile).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
FreeBMD is not allowed as a source for biographies of living people though, as per WP:BLP and WP:PRIMARY. So it ought to be removed, and a better source used instead. TrottieTrue (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

If that's the case, then remove that source yourself. It provides a copy of the original report by the registrar of births, confirming 'Mary Elizabeth Truss' and that her mother was Grasby. Is the latter document of no consequence because of its provenance? Whats to stop an editor from uploading it to Commons and merely citing it? Billsmith60 (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with the policy, I just thought I should mention it because I've been tripped up on it before, without realising that FreeBMD counts as "public records". The Guardian source should be adequate for confirming her real name, anyway. An editor could indeed upload the document and cite it, but it would still surely be against the rules. Of course, public records are used on lots of BLP articles, so it really just depends what gets noticed by other editors. TrottieTrue (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I believe the issue being referred to is WP:BLPPRIMARY, as it gets at WP:BLPPRIVACY, and is not an issue of verifiability. Correct me if I’m wrong though. — HTGS (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I think that is indeed the case. Hence such records can be used for non-BLP biography articles. TrottieTrue (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't aware of those policies. Richard Nowell (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
What on earth is going on with her name (again?) Billsmith60 (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I have checked Civil Registration birth index for England and Wales and it (also) confirms she was Mary Elizabeth. No other person born that name in Oxford so this is her. I have taken the liberty of adding a BBC source for the name so it doesn’t continue to say ‘citation needed’ but please feel free to change this. BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to add some more information. On Ancestry.com I searched for birth registrations under the name "MARY ELIZABETH TRUSS" and found an entry in Oxford which was the only entry for ANY Truss that quarter (Jul, Aug, Sept) in the England & Wales Civil Registration Birth Index. The mother's name is registered as Grasby. The District is Oxford, volume 20, page 2898. The source citation to use is "General Register Office; United Kingdom; Volume: 20; Page: 2898" I have added that to the main page although I am rusty with WP after almost a decade out of using it so I hope I got the cite right. It add a reliable and authoritative source so I hope that helps.Candy (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2022

Change the term “passed away” under the ‘Appointment’ subsection to “died”. Passed away is explicitly listed as a term to avoid on WP:EUPHEMISM. 2A00:23C7:DA0B:3901:A054:6361:A26:8A2 (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done by someone else.----Pontificalibus 06:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2022

Please change the first sentence of this article from, "Mary Elizabeth Truss (born 26 July 1975)[1][2] is a British politician who has served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party since 6 September 2022, and as Member of Parliament (MP) for South West Norfolk since 2010." to "Mary Elizabeth Truss (born 26 July 1975)[1][2] is a British politician who is serving as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party since 6 September 2022, and as Member of Parliament (MP) for South West Norfolk since 2010." It should be in the present tense. 202.140.62.212 (talk) 06:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Mvqr (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Majority

Her majority is 26,195 (50.9%), not 35,507 (69.0%). The latter represents her votes and vote share, not majority. 2A04:4A43:500F:EDC7:6583:3462:2845:7094 (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2022

Please change the first sentence of this article from, "Mary Elizabeth Truss (born 26 July 1975)[1][2] is a British politician who is the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party, positions she has held since 6 and 5 September 2022 respectively." to, "Mary Elizabeth Truss (born 26 July 1975)[1][2] is a British politician who is the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party, positions she holds since 6 and 5 September 2022 respectively.". It should be in the present tense.— 2405:204:570C:D779:0:0:1770:A8B1 (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Please don't put the, "holds" in bold. I did that only to make it stand out.

 Not done: "has held" is present tense. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Mvqr, what is your opinion?-2405:204:570C:D779:0:0:1770:A8B1 (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
What about changing it to, "Mary Elizabeth Truss (born 26 July 1975)[1][2] is a British politician who is the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party, positions she has been holding since 6 and 5 September 2022 respectively."? It will be like the second sentence (of this article).—2405:204:570C:D779:0:0:1770:A8B1 (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
'"Has held" is present perfect tense and denotes an action in an indefinite time which may continue.' This is exactly the right expression for exactly this situation. Both proposed alternatives are clanking disimprovements. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Electoral history of Liz Truss into Liz Truss

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was not merged. Closure requested at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Talk:Liz_Truss#Proposed_merge_of_Electoral_history_of_Liz_Truss_into_Liz_Truss (permalink). (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Article WP:CFORK was created without discussion. Both are short articles. Following the WP:PAGESIZE rules, a separate electoral history article is not needed for Liz Truss. So the new fork should be merged here. Venkat TL (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose a) It was not a split or fork out since the full detailed results were not listed on this page before the creation of Electoral history of Liz Truss [5] b) I think having the heading "Electoral history" followed by the main template is sufficent for redirecting readers to another page for those to see the details surrounding her electoral history. This article is already long, and is going to be even longer as her premiership continues.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    It is still a CFORK by definition, you should have created a section here first. Please argue on the merits and not on bureaucracy or technicalities. How did you reach the conclusion long enough? Please check the community approved rules of what is considered long on WP:PAGESIZE. Please refer to Boris Johnson and its talk page thread for existing standard. Also check the length of BoJo article. Venkat TL (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose – I agree with user Spy-cicle. Liz Truss' page is indeed going to get very long if we allow in extraneous material which exists elsewhere. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose - as above. This material has standalone quality. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose I was in the middle of drafting the electoral history article when I saw that User:Spy-cicle had created it. Having an electoral history article for heads of state/prime ministers seems quite normal on WP. Agree with others that the Liz Truss article will be long enough already. It probably doesn’t need any ‘Electoral history’ content, other than to point people towards the standalone article. TrottieTrue (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@TrottieTrue Oppose for the reasons above. This article has value in its own right. Denham331 (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2022 (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.

Abortion

This section could do with updating. Aapart from the Northen Ireland section, the rest isn't relevant to the UK. The Heritage Foundation is based in the USA.

In 2021, Truss voted to decriminalise abortion in Northern Ireland and abstained from voting on the introduction of "buffer zones" outside of abortion clinics. As minister of women and equalities, she faced criticism from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) for ignoring demands to publicly denounce the overruling of Roe v. Wade in the United States, and the BPAS stated Truss had a "pattern of abstention when it comes to the issue of abortion." In 2019, she spoke with The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that is anti-abortion.[189] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.114.104 (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The voting part is ok, but the rest isn't. One group criticising someone for not saying something about another country... and speaking to an organisation that presumably another organisation doesn't like... none of this is worth including. EddieHugh (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
All depends how it's sourced (and whether it can be better sourced). If there's major articles in (let's say) the Guardian, the Independent and The Atlantic discussing this speech and her lack of commentary on Roe v. Wade, then that's all good. If it's just press releases from the orgs concerns, that's very weak. As a topic this seems a significant one, as Truss is normally seen as being on the 'free market' -- or even 'libertarian' -- wing of the party, rather than the socially conservative one. (Let alone that she used to be a LibDem!) So this helps put that framing of her in context. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022

Jothsp123 (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Please grant me access to this article

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Or you could request page-protection be (entirely) removed. Good to have a rationale for such a request, however. (Much as I'm sure a 'please' is appreciated!) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

This woman is far-right.

Le Pen is described as being far right why isn’t Truss—??? Far that matter Nigel Farage as well??2A04:4A43:46EF:F17C:B413:9AED:10F6:9D57 (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@User:2A04:4A43:46EF:F17C:B413:9AED:10F6:9D57 Le Pen is described as far-right cos WP:RS back that up, just like every statement on Wikipedia no matter how big or small. If u can find reliable sources calling her far-right, you can describe her as far-right in the lead as long as you also include the sources. If you can find reliable sources calling her far-right - and I would not be surprised if you could - I wouldn't oppose the article saying she is that. In fact, I'd support your addition. Same goes for Farage. Stephanie921 (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
This is the kind of one-dimensional partisanship that is ruining debate in Western society, calling everyone on the left "far left" and everyone on the right "far right". If we're going on economic policy, which to be honest most people aren't when they are talking about far right, then yes she is positioned far to the economic right. But the term is mostly used for social policy and Truss is not known for pursuing ethno-nationalism or vilifying whole religious communities like those who receive that tag. Even the Guardian has said "Truss is more of a keen amateur culture warrior than a die-hard aficionado, keeping the Tory faithful happy at hustings events with passing swipes at “woke” culture and trans rights". If Britain's main left-wing news source is saying that Truss only pays lip service to "culture war" issues, you're going to find it hard to back up your claims. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I'd mostly concur with that. You'd struggle to define Liz Truss as "far right", even by modern-day standards. TrottieTrue (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
You'll find RS calling her "hard right" (IMO fairly accurately, if her leadership-contest protestations and other recent antics are to be seen as sincere and a consistent statement of intent) but not "far right". We probably shouldn't say that either in wikivoice though, but in an attributed discussion of her views. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Transphobia

This needs to mention about Liz Truss being transphobic 94.0.72.146 (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Already covered. See "Leader of the Conservative Party" in the opening, and the "Social and cultural issues" section. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Move article from "Liz Truss" to "Elizabeth Truss"

NO CONSENSUS TO MOVE
I am marking this discussion as closed, but also noting that this is not a formal Requested Move discussion. If further proposals are to be made, they should be done via the WP:RM process.

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.


I think we should move this article from Liz Truss to Elizabeth Truss since her official MP profile says, Elizabeth Truss. Please share your consensus on this so I can decide whether to move the page or not. RayAdvait (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME says we should stick with whatever the most commonly-used name is, which is by far "Liz". — Czello 13:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Czello. Anyhow, moving a Talk page should never happen without discussion, particularly for a high-profile figure Billsmith60 (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, there seems little basis for making this move, almost all reliable sources call her "Liz Truss", so that's the WP:COMMONNAME. Either way, it certainly requires a full WP:RM discussion before it would be moved.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Absurd proposal. She is universally known as Liz Truss. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The official website of the US presidency has a profile for William J. Clinton [6], but just like your proposal, there isn't a WP:SNOWball's chance in heck that the Wikipedia page would move, because all the other sources use the WP:COMMONNAME. If she showed a profound and public dislike to being called Liz, then it could move, but that isn't the case. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
No. We're not an arm of Parliament. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
No. Oppose. She's known as Liz Truss. TrottieTrue (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The question is - what term will people looking for more information on her use: they may know that her full given name is Elizabeth but will not search on that term. (Margaret/Maggie Thatcher might be one of the few cases where a debate might have gone further than this) Jackiespeel (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I'd imagine Anthony/Tony Blair would be a more apt comparison. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 8 September 2022.

I agree with RayAdvith because Liz isn't really her name.Her name is Elizabeth Trusted.Her real name is not Liz Truss. Joevaneshaan Ravan (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not a reason to move the page. Boris isn't really Boris Johnson's name either, his name is Alexander, yet I don't think you're suggesting we move his page as well? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Define "real name", please. If you mean to say that's the name on her official documents, that doesn't mean it should be our article title. Bill Clinton and not William Jefferson Clinton, similarly, Liz Truss is known as Liz not Elizabeth. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

OPPOSE As it is now abundantly clear after two weeks (7-20 September) that there is no consensus on this proposal, can someone mark it as "failed" and close the discussion? Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd say there is a consensus, against this proposal. I can't close it myself since I'm involved. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Her first name is Mary, not Elizabeth. GoodDay (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2022 (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.

Influence of US groups

This new section is out of place and isn't right for this article. Could we please have an admin view on this matter before it becomes an edit war? Thanks very much. 1deangreenie (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)(Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

It is perfect for the article, it is fully attributed and from a reliable source and connects Truss to some very dark right-wing groups. Admins don't make the decisions that you are asking for. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
It's not right for this exact article, imho, Kitchen. Your text is very small for its own section, and looks like it was added without much care or thought. You also added the source with some text in the wrong sections on other pages (such as Thérèse Coffey). I don't think what is reported is exactly proven to be correct. I'm not an admin, but I was hoping someone higher up or a watcher of this article could share their thoughts, before this ends up in an edit war, which is against the rules. 1deangreenie (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)(Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)
I've removed it for now. I've explained my reasons on Kitchen Knife's talk page but the applicable policy is WP:REDFLAG. The content may be appropriate with better sourcing but it doesn't need its own section. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Extra references https://mg.co.za/opinion/2022-09-07-liz-truss-new-uk-prime-ministers-links-to-right-wing-think-tanks/ https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/12/19/liz-truss-dark-money-think-tanks-koch-brexit/ https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Quoting my reply on my talk page: "I don't know what the first or third are, and Greenpeace is a pressure group. A household name newspaper (not necessarily British) would be a better choice, a book or journal article from a reputable publisher even better. "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"; this is especially important when dealing with living people and contemporary politics where the potential for harm is much higher." HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
DeSmog is cited in a lot or articles. Then there is https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/liz-truss-heritage-foundation-lobbyists-climate-obama/ https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/29/rightwing-thinktank-conservative-boris-johnson-brexit-atlas-network https://www.theweek.co.uk/96563/radical-right-wing-us-uk-post-brexit-trade-plan-revealed --Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

User HJ Mitchell's approach is one I would follow. Moreover, I see no justification for this new item, even if properly sourced, having a subtitle or subsection of its own. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem with Truss is that her political position has changed so often that there is no chance of one big section. It deserves a section on its own, if it is not big enough then expanded it.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Ideally it'd be integrated into an existing section, in the context of a source suggesting contacts on a particular issue, or objecting to them on the basis from a particular from a particular viewpoint. A couple of possible sources: CNBC: "Protests, ‘Reaganomics’ and ... cheese: Meet the UK’s new prime minister, Liz Truss" (economics angle); Pink News: "Liz Truss lavished praise on anti-trans think tank Heritage Foundation just weeks before equalities minister appointment" (social conservativism/trans issues). Both seem usable to me. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The Guardian is a reliable source. CNBC and Pink News are generally reliable. You could definitely incorporate something based on those sources but you'd have to be careful to stick to what the sources say and not draw your own inferences. DeSmog is a blog and not a reliable source. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Politicians meet people and organisations all the time. It's part of the job. Some of these meetings get reported. That's not enough to mention them in this article. What's the justification for including these? There's coverage of her meeting, for instance, Democrat Richard Neal (quick examples: [7], [8], but I see no strong reason to mention these either. EddieHugh (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

They are organisations financed by people with political agendas and often conceal other donors and their objects, they are exceptionally shady, with very low transparency. They lobby groups with clandestine backgrounds and disingenuous public profiles and names.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
What political campaign groups are fully transparent and do not have an agenda? EddieHugh (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Not all are opaque. https://bylinetimes.com/2019/08/30/bbc-finally-insists-opaquely-funded-think-tanks-declare-their-interests/ https://www.transparify.org/blog/2017/2/28/thinktanks-evidence-policy Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
And not all meetings are as unremarkable and routine as the Richard Neal meeting, which is no respect whatsoever comparable. The significance of the HF meetings is that they appear to illuminate her political positions, which is much-needed given her career as a flip-flopping cipher that's risen to her present position by cosplay and the peter principle. Hence the lack of much of substance on that in the article at present. Given that the HF would be seen as rather outside the UK political Overton Window by the NHS-worshipping electorate, that tends to increase its importance. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Opps No 10 chief of staff in FBI inquiry over 'election bribe' in Puerto.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Letters of no-confidence already submitted

According to recent reports in the British press (e.g. Independent, Wales Online), dissatisfied Tory MPs have already submitted letters of no-confidence in Truss to the chairman of the Conservative party's 1922 Committee. This must surely be a record and merits mention in the article.

The Wales Online article includes the following: "An ex-minister in Boris Johnson’s government told Sky political news editor Agnes Chambre on Monday (26 Sep 2022) that some MPs have already sent letters of no confidence to 1922 Committee chairman Sir Graham Brady. For a confidence vote to be triggered, 54 letters would need to be sent. The former minister told Sky: "Liz is f*****... You cannot have monetary policy and fiscal policy at loggerheads. Something has to give... They are already putting letters in as [they] think she will crash the economy." --TraceyR (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Newsnight has similar reporting. Whether or not it's a record or not depends how you're defining -- and verifying -- the standard for such, so we certainly don't want to be introducing our own language for that, if the sources aren't agreed on such. Incidentally (and this is sourceable too) they'd also have to change the rules to allow a confidence vote so soon. So if it reaches 54, it's more of a 'persons in grey suits' moment. Formally, you'd need some theoretically larger number of 'please, '22 committee executive, change the rules' letters too. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

What degree did I she get?

Why is her degree not mentioned anywhere? All we get is “she graduated”. 87.75.101.5 (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

A 'PPE' BA, as noted in Early Life Billsmith60 (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
What class? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.227.60 (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Personal life

The section "Personal Life" reads: "Her marriage with O'Leary survived the affair, but Field's broke down, and his wife cited his adultery with Truss in their divorce."

The part "but Field's broke down, and his wife cited his adultery with Truss in their divorce" (which was recently added) must be removed, because it implies that Truss's affair with Field had a major role and was directly responsible for Field's divorce. According to the source which broke the affair news first: "But the marriage [of Field and his wife] had been in trouble for some time and the couple had been drifting apart anyway at the time of his affair." [9] This has already been discussed above in the section about the affair. Even if it were true, it is WP:UNDUE since Truss's affair is relevant primarily in the context of her deselection process, not in the context of her private life and certainly not in the context of Field's private life. I want to point out that there is not even consensus to have the affair in the private life section (see again the discussion above). See Talk:Liz_Truss#Extramarital_Affair. 2A02:2F0F:B2FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:D0EC (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Very much agree with this. Despite the original consensus obtained on the previous WP:BLPN discussions, there had not been a consensus on this talk page that this should be included in the Personal Life section in addition to the Parliamentary Candidature section - yet, it was added anyway without a widespread agreement to do so. The most recent addition is inappropriate for the reasons that have been stated, and selectively quoting out of context words from the tabloid Mirror is not credible, and gives a very slanted impression given that the Fields had supposedly been drifting apart anyway. The conflict in these sources is reason enough for this not to be in this section; the reliable sources relate to the deselection process that resulted from reports of the affair. So the mention in the most relevant section (Parliamentary Candidature) is the suitable location for it - fully visible for everyone to read, but WP:UNDUE to be in the "Personal Life" section too. Hxb1984 (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The part "but Field's broke down, and his wife cited his adultery with Truss in their divorce" (which was recently added) must be removed IamVinn011 (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This is not just disrespectful towards her but also readers may not want to know their leader's personal life. Let her inspire millions of women out there and it is unnecessary to publish someone's personal life here. IamVinn011 (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Why "must" it be removed? Are you suggesting there's a BLP violation, or some other problem with the content? Or merely expressing an entirely personal preference in hyperbolical terms? To the objective observer, Truss's best hope of inspiring millions of people is to regard her as an object lesson in how not conduct their lives... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Socialist Worker Student Society

according to Dave Renton: https://livesrunning.wordpress.com/2022/09/06/liz-trusss-two-weeks-in-the-socialist-worker-student-society/ 86.151.52.174 (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Would need more extensive sourcing to add - Wordpress blogs aren't considered reliable. — Czello 15:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Given that it's essentially just a personal anecdote, the only way we'll end up using this is if it's re-reported, and we doubly attribute it. "Guardian says that Dave Renton says..." And if and when that does happen, with all the Truss-skepticism in the world, it'll struggle to get past WP:DUEWEIGHT for inclusion. Many an editor would, if being objective, apply a 'who among us haven't done something embarrassing in and around fresher's week, possibly while very drunk' test. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2022

Liz truss was not economic director at C&W she was an account manager 84.71.182.71 (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Both The Guardian and Financial Times have profiles on Truss, which state that she was economic director at Cable & Wireless. If you could please provide alternative sources that disprove of this, I'd be happy to re-evaluate the edit request. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
While Sideswipe9th is correct, we have to remember that lots of reliable sources copy from Wikipedia (see earlier on this talk page for examples based on her name). Both of those sources were published when this Wikipedia article asserted that she was an economic director at C&W. When The Guardian piece was written, the source was the FT piece... when the FT piece was written, the source was her own website, but that doesn't mention C&W (or Shell), so in reality the assertion was unsourced. Actually, that FT piece also got her full name wrong and (guess what!), it used what was on Wikipedia at the time. So, although sources that are widely considered to be reliable do state that she was economic director at C&W, for this, their assertions shouldn't be 100% trusted. EddieHugh (talk) 11:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
But it does contain the text "Elizabeth worked in the energy and telecommunications industry for ten years as a commercial manager and economics director and is a qualified management accountant," which can only reasonably refer to Shell and C&W, respectively. Very possibly she went from grad trainee to manager at Shell, then from manager to director at C&W. Perhaps C&W have 183 "economics directors", and the role's not half as grand as it sounds. But we have those sources, several others seem to say the same thing, and we have none to contradict it, so it seems pretty slam-dunk what the article should -- nay, must -- say. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Effect of 'Mini-budget' including house-hold energy bills cap, unfunded tax cuts, which greatly benefit the richest people, tanking of sterling

If the article mentions 'a multibillion pound package to cap average household energy bills at £2,500 per year' it should also include the other effects of the mini-budget of which that was a part and which have attracted the most national and international attention. Consequences include the lowest pound-to-dollar exchange rate for 70 year and a response from the IMF that is normally reserved for small / third world-countries. (The internet is full of references, including from the most reputable international economic sources). Omitting these major effect of the mini-budget and cherry-picking the positive energy cap omits the main international response and gives a biased version of the effect. Truss has repeatedly said that she is making the 'right decisions', in contrast to the most authoritative world economists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.227.60 (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Definitely agree the criticism of the mini-budget should be mentioned as the article shouldn't be biased towards Liz and the Tories. The mini-budget had major consequences which, as Liz defended the mini-budget several times, are worth a mention here. --79.66.82.129 (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

criticism missing

This article gives no hint of her popularity level or why it is what it is. -- Jibal (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree, there definitely needs to be a mention of this. She has low approval ratings but this is not covered anywhere in the article. --79.66.82.129 (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Happily, we don't have anything like that, as it's constantly changing and of little relevance in the political system that the UK has. If her popularity changed substantially over time, or had a significant impact on something, and these things were discussed in reliable sources, it could be considered. Otherwise, see WP:NOT. EddieHugh (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Liz Truss

Why is it impossible to find out what class of degree Liz Truss was awarded? I assume it was a lower second or a third as it is not listed anywhere? Sara McKenzie 2A00:23C4:562E:5F01:21C3:B8DF:CB9E:A3FA (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You could probably find out from documents issued by her university, given enough determination. EddieHugh (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Mention of her being the last Conservative leader and PM under Elizabeth II?

I think this is worth a mention in the lead, per the lead of Gordon Brown's article stating he was the last Labour leader and PM under the late Queen. 79.66.82.129 (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Why? It's trivia. It should be removed from the article completely, not added to the lead. It might be of relevance on another article, but this article is about Truss, not a head of state. Thanks for the alert about the Brown article; I've cut it from the lead there. EddieHugh (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
To be honest, I fully agree with it not being mentioned here due to it being trivia. Thank you for removing it from Brown's article. --79.66.82.129 (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Change is to was

She has resigned 2A02:C7C:52D2:E600:4402:6A9D:B203:FE21 (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Not yet but it's rumoured. Amatama (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

see https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/20/liz-truss-to-quit-as-prime-minister 194.40.145.20 (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2022

former prime minister 81.128.152.226 (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done See above, she's current prime minister until they elect a successor JeffUK (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2022 (2)

is -> was

truss has resigned 152.78.0.180 (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done She remains PM for another week. — Czello 12:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2022 (3)

change Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to Former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Thatcatisabrit (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done See above. — Czello 12:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2022 (4)

Former Prime Minister... she resigned 25gshaw (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done See above. — Czello 13:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2022 (2)

Change is and current prefix as she is resigning as prime minster to past tense and also include how short Deathwing87 (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done She remains Prime Minister for another week. — Czello 12:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
should we then put her term end as the 27th October TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
No, per WP:Crystal , we don't know when they Conservative Party will chose a successor, nor when they person will take over. JeffUK (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
didn't liz truss say there will be a successor within a week TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but we don't change it until it actually happens. — Czello 13:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

edit semi-protected

Requesting subsection "Resignation" to be edited to "Liz Truss officially announced her resignation as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom after 45 days in office on 20 October 2022. In doing so, she became the shortest undisputed serving British Prime Minister in history. She will remain as Prime Minister until a successor is elected within the Conservative Party." Original phrasing makes it seem her term has already ended when it wasn't. (Or at least not yet) SBS6577P (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Technically she's not yet the shortest-serving, but the next shortest is 119 days, so it's going to be true. Changed the body to 'will become', hopefully that's enough JeffUK (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
We don't actually know she will be the shortest tenured. It is likely, but it seems preemptive to write that at the moment. Esolo5002 (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree, but with all the hullaballo at the moment, trying to edit more than 3 characters at a time is impossible. When things settle, we can discuss! I'll add a section to discuss it specifically. JeffUK (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2022 (5)

On oct.20, Liz truss resigned.Let me change, or you can.-- Brady 336 (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done see the many edit requests above! JeffUK (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Lettuce

Can a section, or photo of the Daily Star lettuce be added? Image has been seen around the world. 88.97.108.45 (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there a significance to that publicity stunt by a media outlet? Might be more appropriate for the article about her premiership, rather than her personally. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it belongs in any article apart from maybe one discussing the Daily Star itself; it's on the level of WP:Gossip and Daily Star is a deprecated source JeffUK (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Already discussed in thread above. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

FYI: proposed merge List of international prime ministerial trips made by Liz Truss into Premiership of Liz Truss

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merged on 22 October 2022

FYI, List of international prime ministerial trips made by Liz Truss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been proposed to be merged into Premiership of Liz Truss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). For the discussion, see talk:Premiership of Liz Truss -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Premiership of Liz Truss § Merger proposal: "List of international prime ministerial trips made by Liz Truss" to here
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.

FYI: proposed merge List of departures from the Truss ministry into Truss ministry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merged on 22 October 2022

FYI, List of departures from the Truss ministry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been proposed to be merged into Truss ministry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). For the discussion, see talk:Truss ministry -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Truss ministry § Merger with "List of departures from the Truss ministry"
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.

Liz truss's resignation

Changing details to include her resignation. 78.101.144.216 (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Which details do you think need changing? JeffUK (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I am noting here that the article about her father, John Truss, will need to be updated to indicate that she is the "former" Prime Minister once she actually leaves office and her successor begins. – Kekki1978 (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Date of departure as Leader of the Conservative Party

Is it correct that Truss is still leader of the Conservative Party? The page source has a comment saying she remains leader until the new one is elected, but is that actually true? I would have thought that given her resignation the post is vacant. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Post of Leader of the Conservative Party, that is, not PM. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Looked into this when Boris resigned; there was no clear answer then, there's nothing explicit in the party constitution and, in effect, it doesn't matter enough who is party leader for the intervening couple of weeks for there to be much of a consensus on it. JeffUK (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
That's interesting: thank you for that. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Lettuce

The tabloid Daily Star has set up a live feed of an unrefrigerated iceberg next to a photo of Truss. "Which wet lettuce will last longer?," it asked in a Twitter post showing the feed that had garnered over 50,000 likes in its first five hours online. Reuters, New York Magazine, The Express. 86.188.121.92 (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

This is trivial though and probably shouldn't be added. This is Paul (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Agree, nonsense publicity stunt. Dronebogus (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Publicity for whom? Was first mentioned by The Economist. Has accrued wide coverage since then, including internationally. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
The lettuce made the NYT. If not for the main article, then for a premiership or timeline subarticle [10] - David Gerard (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Absolute nonsense and should not be mentioned. This is an encyclopaedia, not a gossip column Billsmith60 (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
You think it's only a rumour that the Daily Star 60p lettuce has outlasted Truss? [11] 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

If this section remains, it should at least be edited to accurately credit the initial idea coming from The Economist on 11 Oct 2022: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/10/11/liz-truss-has-made-britain-a-riskier-bet-for-bond-investors and credit give to The Daily Star for the livestream. 132.183.13.76 (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

No. Also, the Daily Star is not a reliable source for anything Billsmith60 (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The links provided to support this section were The Guardian, Washington Post and Reuters. Yes, they were referring to the fact that the Daily Star had done the livestream, but it was equally as much about drawing attention to the cost of basic food items - as a direct result of Truss's economic policies - as it was a publicity stunt. This is why I believed it to be relevant to the article, and listed credible news sources that also cited this as being relevant to her resignation MrPaperwings (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

If it's relevant enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article (Daily Star lettuce), why isn't it relevant enough for inclusion here? 31.205.5.237 (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It is mentioned under Premiership of Liz Truss already. Although I agree it has become something of a signature meme, I am not (personally) sure it crosses a threshold for inclusion in her own biography. BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It is now mentioned, but not distastefully after my slimming it down, in the Resignation section Billsmith60 (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

But I see people are insisting on sensationalism Billsmith60 (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Shortest-Serving PM?

Technically Truss is still PM, and no-one knows for sure how long her tenure will last, per Wikipedia:CRYSTAL I think it may be premature to describe her as the 'shortest serving', but per common sense; there is practically no way she can remain PM for 120 days to avoid ultimately becoming the shortest serving. She has given a 1 week deadline for her replacement. Short of full-scale war breaking out between now and then she's as good as gone.

I think that she will become the shortest serving is fine in the body but should stay off the lead at this time until it actually happens. Thoughts?

JeffUK (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree. We can't predict the length of the rest of her tenure. Esolo5002 (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
There's still not even any agreed mechanism for choosing a successor. It's like Boris all over again, but worse. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, ain't that one for the history books: Even worse than Boris. --2003:EF:170A:9248:8104:4631:A2DD:EB7D (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Also agree and just made the same comment in Talk on Tenure page BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
We don't have to know the exact length of her tenure. The next shortest tenure is 119 days, which won't be until January(I think) for Truss, and she will be gone by next week. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I thought I should mention that the current Wikipedia home page's 'In the news' section has it written that she has already become the shortest-serving prime minister, which is conflict with the determinations made on this talk page. I suggest editors of the Truss's Wikipedia article make sure the preference for not predicting the future is consistently reflected on the front page of the website. Kxcii (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Let's wait until she hands in her resignation to the king. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

FYI: proposed merge Trussonomics into Liz Truss#Economics

FYI, Trussonomics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been proposed to be merged into Liz Truss#Economics. For the discussion, see Talk:Trussonomics. aismallard (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

"Trussonomics"

Trussonomics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) currently redirects here. Wouldn't it be better to point to Premiership of Liz Truss, where Trussonomics brought her down, or September 2022 United Kingdom mini-budget, where it was implemented? -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably. e.g. look where Trumponomics and Cameronomics go. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I would agree with that Unbeatable101 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Sensible proposition. Either or sounds good to me. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

NOTE the redirect was overwritten by DRAFT:Trussonomics (the subject of a round-robin swap), a few hours after I started this discussion. Trussonomics is now a stub article -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

"Outgoing"

As was the case when Boris Johnson resigned, there appears to be a slow-paced edit war around whether the infobox should list Truss as "outgoing".[12][13][14] Do we actually have a consensus around whether or not she should be listed as "outgoing"? I can't see an agreement either way, though I've seen some editors (including in the Talk:Boris Johnson archives) who say it should remain as "incumbent". — Czello 11:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

It should. Article has been restored to say 'Incumbent' Billsmith60 (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth or Mary

Is the BBC News source reliable enough to have her name as Mary Elizabeth Truss? Both the letters patent appointing her as a Treasury Commissioner and Crown Office lists of members returned at the last election have it as Elizabeth Mary Truss. When she was Justice Secretary and commissions were used for prorogation, her name was read out as Elizabeth Mary too. https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4189711 https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3454492 1234567jack (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Issue has been discussed at length on here. See Old versions. M.E. Truss is correct Billsmith60 (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Ta 1234567jack (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Caretaker tag instead of "incumbent" for prime minster

the caretaker link takes you to a disambiguation of "Caretaker"

shouldn't it direct straight to this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caretaker_government BeefsteakMaters (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

No. 'Caretaker' is incorrect Billsmith60 (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
There's no such thing as a caretaker PM. You're either PM or you're not.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Verification of 2nd sentence

HurricaneHiggins, to support this edit of yours, can you please quote from the cited source where it supports the assertion that On 20 October,... she announced her resignation as prime minister...". Remember that neither headlines nor sub headlines are considered to be part of a reliable source per WP:HEADLINE. I've read it over and over, and watched her full announcement here, and did not notice her say that. She said (from ~ 1:04 ) I have therefore spoken to His Majesty the King to notify him that I am resigning as leader of the Conservative Party and (from ~ 1:35) I will remain as prime minister until a successor has been chosen. I think the best we can say is On 20 October, after 44 days in office, she announced her resignation as leader of the Conservative Party and that she will continue as prime minister until a successor is chosen. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Per the source: "Liz Truss has resigned as prime minister just 44 days after taking over from Boris Johnson."
Stating that she has resigned as Conservative Party leader but will continue as prime minister will be confusing for many readers, especially international readers unfamiliar with British politics and its conventions. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
@HurricaneHiggins, that's only in a sub-headline though, and not supported by the body of the source, so, per WP:HEADLINE it is not reliably sourced. Hence it fails verification, as I said (and you reverted). WP:HEADLINE (part of WP:RS) says News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I've added another source, the New York Times. I don't see the point in quibbling about this. Numerous major media sources state she has resigned as PM. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Did you watch the video of the announcement? As you say above, they may be misunderstanding it. We need to compare the body of sources on this to figure out what their consensus is, not just look cherry-pick one that supports what we want to see written. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I propose the compromise along the lines of After 44 days in office, she announced on 20 October her resignation as leader of the Conservative Party and said that she will continue as prime minister until a successor is chosen. All the sources I've seen say both those things. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Just to let you know I've undone your last edit as it doesn't seem to actually be fixing the issue you've raised above, and just makes the sentence less grammatically sound. — Czello 11:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I intended to revert the addition of the NYT source, but didn't notice the other change. I've compromised by re-adding the 'failed verification' instead, until we can reach agreement here. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Although she is widely reported to have ‘resigned’, she does not formally resign until the successor is installed. See House of Commons Library . I think the text as it is is now correct and does not need further verification (or this source could be added). BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2022

p is not an abbreviation of percent in any style guide or language. Someone is putting their personal preferences into this language please revert it to standard English. Bob10011001 (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Raymond Kestis (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Change every instance of "p", representing %, instead to be the % sign. Type the article in English, or let me do it. It doesn't matter, it has been done. 184.67.37.222 (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2022 (6)

She should be credited as the UKs shortest lived Prime Minister as that is now a fact 2A02:C7F:D089:6E00:612E:6AF7:B88E:9D1B (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Not technically left yet - David Gerard (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
According to List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by length of tenure the next shortest tenure is 119 days; Truss won't come close to that until January, and her replacement will be chosen by next week. The BBC is also reporting the claim. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
"Her replacement will be chosen by next week" per Wikipedia:CRYSTAL we do not know that, we're at the whim of the Conservative party's selection process. Truss has expressed a desire for the replacement to happen within a week, but it's very possible candidates may sue for a 'full selection process' for fairness; or that she goes sooner. Selection processes can take a long time. JeffUK (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
This has been clarified now. Earliest date is Monday, latest is Friday 28th for new leader confirmed, so likely the very latest date new PM installed (by King) would be Sat 29th. There is no way that she cannot be the shortest serving, but we don’t know the exact number of days until next week. Although I appreciate the sentiment not to describe her as such until she has stepped down, she will be universally described as the shortest serving in all newspapers tomorrow BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, served as prime minister for a mere 23 days in 1834.
This is according to Wikipedia's own List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom. Olcharkuk (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
He served for 23 days in his second stint. He had been PM for two years prior to that.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 Note: It appears this is a case of WP:CURRENT with multiple editors involved who are preparing to address this request as information releases. Because of this, I am procedurally marking the template as answered. —Sirdog (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
That seems legit. The fact should not be mentioned now, per WP:CRYSTAL and the reasons given above (which is why we also removed this factoid from ITN). But obviously once she actually leaves, it can be confirmed loud and clear.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Change “sacked” to “dismissed” to maintain consistency.

In the section for Cabinet, an instance of the word “dismissed” is used.

“This was the case for just 38 days before she dismissed Kwarteng and replaced him with Jeremy Hunt.[185][186]”

Then in the section below it, “Domestic Policies”, the word “sacked” is used for the same effect “dismissed” was used in the previous section.

“ She later reversed the cut in corporation tax and sacked Kwarteng, replacing him with Jeremy Hunt on 14 October.[202]”

Obviously one of these words needs to be the same as the other just for basic consistency. In my opinion I would use the word “dismissed” in this case just because it can be more formal and specific, while “sacked” could almost be slang. 69.1.238.179 (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Parents

Why is she listed in the infobox as only having one parent? I know that she is a bit weird, but really she did have a mother too. Bagunceiro (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liz_Truss/Archive_1&oldid=1173654168"