Talk:Liz Truss/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Liz Truss is NOT the shortest serving prime minister in the history of the UK

The final sentence of the introduction identifies Truss as "the shortest serving prime minister in the history of the UK." This is not accurate, as the list in this article which is hyperlinked in that statement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_length_of_tenure) makes clear.

I suppose we can set aside William Pulteney, 1st Earl of Bath, who in 1746 asked by his majesty King George II to form a government, but gave up the attempt after short more than 48 hours. And we can leave James Waldegrave, 2nd Earl Waldegrave, who arguably served in the capacity between 8–12 June in 1757, consigned to the "disputed" category.

But Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, served as prime minister for a mere 23 days in 1834 — Liz Truss's tenure, while remarkably short, is already twice his.

The article can say "the shortest serving prime minister in the history of the UK since 1834" and make the same point while maintaining historical accuracy. Olcharkuk (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Shortest "elected" PM? Weren't these others just chosen by the king, back when the king still had a modicum of power? -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• If she's not, then you will need to tell the BBC, which has been saying she is since she announced. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• For the record, the United Kingdom was only created in 1801, so any examples before that year isn't (and shouldn't be) counted under the UK. I'm not so sure about the 1st Duke of Wellington, but then you might want to explain why Reuters, the Washington Post, CNBC, BBC and at least 10 other sources say it is the shortest. SBS6577P (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Olcharkuk The Duke of Wellington served those 23 days as interim PM, or what we would now call acting PM. It is not regarded by any source as a ministry, but an example of one of the last times the monarch actively interfered by slighting Peel. Truss IS the shortest serving Prime Minister in the history of the United Kingdom. AjCassells (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that British PMs are judged by their WHOLE tenure in office. So arguably, Liz could get back into office at a later date and give Canning back the crown. AjCassells (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

AJ, you're a sick puppy Bagunceiro (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

This could ultimately be a matter of interpretation, whether you count PMs who had a "normal" ministry. Wellington's second alleged ministry is not usually counted in works of reference, Canning has up to now been regarded as the shortest-serving PM. PatGallacher (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

FYI: proposed merge October 2022 United Kingdom government crisis to Premiership of Liz Truss

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

Did not merge

FYI, October 2022 United Kingdom government crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been proposed to be merged to Premiership of Liz Truss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). For the discussion, see talk:October 2022 United Kingdom government crisis -- 65.92.244.114 (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Moved to talk:October 2022 United Kingdom government crisis § Merge and re-direct to Premiership of Liz Truss#Calls for Truss's resignation

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.

45 days in office, not 44

Truss had been office for 45 days when she said she would be resigning. 6-30 Sep is 25 days, plus 20 in Oct = 45 Billsmith60 (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

That depends whether both the start and end dates are included. If she ruled from midday one day to midday the next, that would be one day, not two. I suspect 44 is more accurate, but sources are mixed between the two.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

What is unclear about this? Day 1, when the Queen appointed Truss PM, was 6 Sep. Day 45, when Truss said she was stepping down, was 20 Oct. It need not become any more involved than that, no matter what 'sources' say. Do we need to cite thst the sky is blue here? Billsmith60 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

It might help to note that 6-30 Sep. is 25 days, not 24. Then 1-20 is 20, total 45. We are not speaking about 30 minus 6 days, which would give 24 Billsmith60 (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@Billsmith60, she became PM at about 13:00 on 6 September and resigned about 13:30 on 20 October. I make that 44 days and 30 minutes. I'd round that to 44 days. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@Billsmith60 I'm sorry but this is silly. 30-6=24, not 25. We're talking about the amount of time between her taking office and announcing her resignation, not the number of individual calendar days that her tenure spanned. Are we also going to say that because Liz Truss became Prime Minister in 2022 that she was therefore Prime Minister for one year? Ollie231213 (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect

Count (on your fingers if necessary) the number of days there are in the dates 6-30. The answer is 25. Truss was PM on each of those days. If she'd been appointed and resigned on 6 Sep., thst would have been one day. If 6-7 Sep., it would have been two days. So follow that all the way through and you'll get 45. Ireland's national broadcaster, RTE, does so – https://www.rte.ie/news/2022/1020/1330447-liz-truss-shortest-serving-prime-ministers/

Also, hours are irrelevant, as she is still the PM one day later. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Boris Johnson was Prime Minister from 2019 to 2022. For how many years was he Prime Minister? Ollie231213 (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Resigned.

She has resigned. We must add this information. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Done! Note to all editors, Truss is still Prime Minister of the UK until a successor is chosen (she stated so explicitly in her resignation.) JeffUK (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Note also. She's still the leader of the Conservative Party, until her successor is chosen. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Resignation

Liz Truss just resigned today. https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-63309400?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=6351405240fad4042da7875a%26Truss%20announces%20her%20resignation%20as%20prime%20minister%262022-10-20T12%3A34%3A27.277Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:7e40ac9f-5ba7-48f0-b28f-2c4ca7ba9745&pinned_post_asset_id=6351405240fad4042da7875a&pinned_post_type=share . 121.6.44.184 (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

She technically announced her intention to resign following the leadership election, so is still PM as of today.  Kxcii (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

She's also Conservative party leader, until her successor is chosen. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2022

change incumbent to outgoing for prime minister and leader of the conservative party Zac Hollinshead (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done She is not "outgoing" until her successor is chosen. I haven't seen this done for other officials. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

In fairness I'd describe here as "outgoing", and would have done after her resignation (but especially now a successor is chosen).

That said, WP:NOHURRY, given that in under 24 hours it's likely to be "gone" rather than "going". ∰Bellezzilla Solo✡ Discuss 13:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2022

Says 20 october instead of october 20th Kallixo (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Not done. Article is in DMY format, which is common on Wikipedia. --Mvqr (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Font Size & Bias

Can't edit myself but the "Brexit" header near the bottom of the wiki page is way too small to be a header.

Also don't think the lettuce comparisons should be in an unbiased article as it denotes an opinion. Jellinator (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The Brexit header is a third level header underneath a second level header, a subsection of "foreign policy". That's why its's smaller. The lettuce comparison has received significant coverage, and has its own article, so one line is probably appropriate for this one. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2022

Hello, I would like state that according to an article an hour ago from CBS News, Rishi Sunak has been elected prime minister. 2603:8000:FB01:9300:1C94:CF44:28D5:2B6A (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done It hasn't happened yet, a few more hours. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Liz Truss official portrait (cropped)2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Change description

As Liz Truss has resigned, the word "since" in the description should not be used. Matr1x-101 (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 Already done ~~ lol1VNIO⁠👻 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 18:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2022

"Residences" under personal details in the info box should be updated. Since she has resigned and been replaced as PM by Rishi Sunak she presumably no longer resides at 10 Downing Street or Chequers. Angengea (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

X Not done. She's still PM until Sunak is appointed Billsmith60 (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• Hand over is tomorrow morning. Keith D (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Removed here. ~~ lol1VNIO⁠👻 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 18:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Days in office..

6-30 September: 25 days 1-25 October: 25 days

Surely 50 days? BRACK66 (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes indeed, friend, as I've had to revert it repeatedly. People change it to 49 and ignore the comment I've added to the source code. Feel free to keep an eye on this! Billsmith60 (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2022

Opening paragraph states that Truss served 50 days in office. This is incorrect. She served exactly 7 weeks, thus 49 days in office. This needs to be changed 2A02:C7E:56A4:4C00:EDC2:3B88:6CF1:D0A4 (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Good catch. Done in this edit. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

No, see two previous items Billsmith60 (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

49 days or 50 days

I see that there are edit wars both at this article and at the List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by length of tenure article about the length of Truss's term. The normal thing to do is to go with the sources, but the problem here is that there are reliable sources for both options. A compromise (for this article, not for the other one) is to just say "seven weeks" like some sources do say. The current lede says 49 days, but it has 2 sources, one which says 50 days and the other one which says 49 days, so obviously it can't remain this way. But consensus must be reached on talk, because edit warring is not productive.2A02:2F0F:B0FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:C3B0 (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

See earlier Talk items, and the source code for a comment I added, to show definitively that she was in office for 50 days. The figure of 49 comes from lazy journalism and an inability to do simple maths. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that 50 days is correct, and a basic calculation per WP:NOR we don't need a source that says it at all. Keep an eye on https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers . When they finish the Truss article, assuming they stick with their previous format we can expect a start and end date of the term definitively which should settle any arguments! JeffUK (talk) 09:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The difference is whether we use elapsed time (to the nearest whole number) or number of days she was the prime minister during. If the former, then it is 49. If the latter, then it is 50. If we used the same methods for weeks it would be 7 using the former 8 for the latter. For months it would be 2 using both methods. For years it would be 0 and 1 respectfully. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking that just after I replied, some sources hedge it slightly and say, "Less than 50 days". JeffUK (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Surely to goodness using elapsed time is overkill. She was PM on 50 consecutive days Billsmith60 (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The wording is clear as day now and need not be tweaked any further Billsmith60 (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

"Resigned amid a government crisis": passive vs active

The 2nd line of the article states: "She resigned amid a government crisis after 50 days in office". The language used here is passive in tone. Independent research has shown that the Truss government "was responsible for about £30bn of the fiscal hole"[1], causing the government crisis during which she resigned. It should be made clear in the public record that it was Liz Truss' specific actions that caused the government crisis, leading to her resignation.

Suggested edit:

"She resigned after 50 days in office, after causing a government crisis."

sources: [1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/12/revealed-the-30bn-cost-of-liz-trusss-disastrous-mini-budget 82.27.104.59 (talk) 09:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Your proposed rewording is a classic example of a WP:POV breach. Politically, I agree with you, but I'm capable of recognising my own biases. Even if we accept the Guardian's analysis (which is hardly neutral), it's arguable whether it was Truss or Kwarteng that should bear the brunt of the blame. The original "passive" wording is better. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:21, 19 November 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

I also understand "sacked" can be considered British English, which is fine, lets just make the words match and choose one to go with. 69.1.238.179 (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 December 2022

2607:FEA8:41DF:BF00:8980:523A:71C8:CFC7 (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Priscilla Truss Not Nee Grasby

 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. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Grammatical Error

In the last sentence of the first paragraph in the lead section, correct the grammar. Change 'She has been Member of Parliament (MP) for South West Norfolk since 2010.' to 'She has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for South West Norfolk since 2010.'

Make it say she has been 'a' or 'the' Member of Parliament for South West Norfolk since 2010. DDMS123 (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

NO: This is not necessary Billsmith60 (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. I think this is a difference between UK English and US English. Please discuss if necessary. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

"So and so is 'member of parliament' for such and such" is common parlance and grammatically correct. Why modify it? Billsmith60 (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 December 2022

Why does the lede say she stepped down when just about every reliable source describes it as her resigning? What’s the point in having it say that? I would go so far as to consider this an example of WP:WEASEL. Please change it to “resigned”. Asperthrow (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is there a strong semantic difference between "stepped down" and "resigned"? I've always viewed them as equal and Merriam-Webster, for example, defines them as synonymous. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I perceive it as a more polite way of saying she resigned. Asperthrow (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

As the contributor who made that change noted, it removes any ambiguity over when she left office. Truss announced her resignation in advance of stepping down several days later. The article is good both for its chronology and accuracy, and no weasel words are used. If only 'other sources' had taken the same trouble the Wikipedia community did over this topic. Billsmith60 (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Announcing her resignation is not the same as resigning. Asperthrow (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Not done, as explained above Billsmith60 (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no difference between the two verbs: 'stepped down' is a good choice, however, because of how the leaving-of-office process was managed Billsmith60 (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I was the one who changed the language to "stepped down". The reason for this was simple. Most could easily conflate the announcement of her resignation/resignation statement (which occurred on her 45th day in office) with her formal resignation on her 50th day in office. If you look at media reports from her 45th day in office, a reader could very easily incorrectly assume that that was her FINAL day in office. She did, however, last a few more days in the job (which is important to note due to her short tenure in office) before formally resigning the office to King Charles. JLo-Watson (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

"Although she supported the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign for the UK to remain in the European Union, Truss supported Brexit after the outcome of the 2016 referendum"

This sentence in the lead is a tad wordy. Why not just say "Truss originally supported the campaign for remaining in the European Union in the 2016 European Union (EU) membership referendum, but later supported Brexit after the outcome of the referendum"? The leads of Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak use similar phrasing and are more concise as a result. 2.97.212.181 (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Your proposed sentence has 1 more word in it than the original. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"Librium Liz" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Librium Liz has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 8 § Librium Liz until a consensus is reached. Estar8806 (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Titles in the article

Hi there, my edit on the titles in the article has been reverted [1] by @Tim O'Doherty, which is also the case in Boris Johnson [2] and Theresa May [3] articles. Is there anything I'm not aware of as I think the current layout is not consistant with MOS:JOBTITLES or other articles on politicians, see Gavin Newsom, Ron DeSantis, Rick Scott. Vyvagaba (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:JOBTITLES, "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" is a title, not a description: it even says "Theresa May became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 2016." is the correct form. If it were to be a description, it would have to be "the prime minister of the United Kingdom", i.e. a prime minister in control of the government of the United Kingdom. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2023

A record was previously held by George Canning. 24.46.55.118 (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2023 (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. ARandomName123 (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Multiple official portraits

There are three official portraits in the article. This would seem to be somewhat excessive. One should suffice. 81.156.104.60 (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree Billsmith60 (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. As the official portraits used at those points in time, they do good at illustrating how she looked at different points in her career. Sure she hasn't changed much, but its still a nice touch in my opinion. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Cameron 2019: Autobiographical Source Concern

I don't think we should be using a politician's autobiography to substantiate factual claims. Cameron's work will not meet the standards at WP:HQRS: in particular, autobiographies are presented as an individual's view or recollections and do not have the rigorous fact-checking we require from a source being used substantively. They therefore fall under WP:PRIMARY: fine for unquestionable statements about their own content (e.g. what Cameron later wrote about an event), not fine for what actually happened during that event, and not fine for any sort of inference, analysis or synthesis. Reliability of sources is a particular concern given the BLP context of the article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Foreign Secretary

That she was foreign secretary is in the main text but omitted from the panel on the rhs, where it would normally show her successor and predecessor in that role. 82.45.172.71 (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not. Click on "show" on "Ministerial offices". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Should Liz Truss supporting Donald Trump be included?

"Liz Truss has thrown her weight behind Donald Trump’s 2024 re-election campaign, saying she “hopes a Republican will be returned to the White House”."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/liz-truss-us-election-donald-trump-b2454049.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-world-again-needs-american-leadership-national-security-gaza-taiwan-ukraine-04a926c0?mod=opinion_lead_pos7 Htrowsle (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably not unusual for a Conservative to support the Republican candidate. This is Paul (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTNEWS, this would need sustained coverage outside its own news cycle to be included: it's fairly routine for well-known politicians' opinions to be reported in the press, but that isn't criteria for inclusion in an article unless those opinions have some effect or more lasting significance. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I may have jumped the gun for this, but multiple news sources are reporting it, so I felt it was necessary to include. As of now, I have put it under views on foreign policy, but someone who is well more knowledgeable on Wikipedia can move/edit/remove it as they see fit. Ellwat (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah. I've removed it now. Hadn't seen your comment, sorry. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent additions re the Queen

@Marginataen - Can you please attempt to use the sfn system which is employed throughout the article? I know it's difficult at first, but spend some time on it. Also, I'm not convinced your additions are pertinent to Truss, or the Queen, or anyone or anything mentioned in the article at all really. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Your prose edits later down the paragraph are also not improvements. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of this specific edit, why choose a referencing system few know how to use? Marginataen (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

For the purposes of the FA criteria: using a consistent referencing style. There are books used as references and it's not practical to repeat all the information for the source like we would use for a newspaper ref. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I've undone the edit for now until I get to look deeper into it Marginataen (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marginataen - Can you please not add commas after dates when beginning a sentence like you did in your most recent edit. This is an FA; please read the FAC for more info. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry Marginataen (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marginataen - It's no problem. Sorry if I came off a bit hard; you were acting in good faith, after all. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Blame for premiership collapse

@Tim O'Doherty, if she blames so many things for the collapse of her premiership, would it not be beneficial to list more of those things? Say… “Truss has attributed the collapse of her premiership to a number of factors, including XXX, YYY, and ZZZ” Snokalok (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd say WP:MANDY applies. Ie, "Truss denies being culpable for the end of her premiership: well she would, wouldn't she?". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I think in this instance it's noteworthy because of the length of her premiership. Also, when Prime Ministers leave office, which is normally through losing an election, they tend not to blame. Ellwat (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Really? Johnson, May and Thatcher all bitterly complained about others ousting them from office. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic, but all of them left office through resigning, and not through losing an election. I don't think WP:MANDY applies here because the circumstances in which Truss left office were remarkable, and what she is saying is also remarkable, ie it's not a commonly-held view and is eye-catching. I doubt either of us have strong opinions either way, so surely it's better to leave it in than removing it. Ellwat (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes—all four were forced, to some degree, to resign; maybe with the exclusion of Thatcher, but that's a separate issue. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m not saying that Truss’s words on this are at all the truth, but the reflections of a fallen figure on their fall from grace - however unhinged they might be - are a worthy inclusion, I’d argue. There’s not a WP:KANYE, but if there was I’d say WP:KANYE, because Kanye’s reflections on his fall from grace - while incredibly unhinged - are worthy information when attributed properly. Snokalok (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Copyedits

I made some text trims, which were reverted.

My edit removed unnecessary elements from the prose, per WP:BECONCISE. For example:

• In early September 2023 she announced her memoirs about her time as prime minister—titled Ten Years to Save the West—which is planned to be released in April 2024. -> In early September 2023 she announced her memoirs about her time as prime minister, Ten Years to Save the West, which is planned for release in April 2024. This is just the same information in fewer words (verobosity bolded).
• the BBC's political editor Faisal Islam wrote in an article that "Trussonomics is dead" — It isn't important to call out where Islam wrote this. If we say a BBC political wrote editor something, people will assume it was in a BBC article. If the reader wants to see exactly where they wrote it they can check the citation.
• Truss is known for her economically liberal views and support for free trade and deregulation. Is it actually important to say that she is known for having these views or is the important thing that she has these views? Should we also report that she is known for being the prime minister of the UK or is it OK to just say she was the prime minister of the UK? (Additionally, does the source actually say she is known for these views or is that additional WP:OR we're throwing in?)
• she co-launched the Popular Conservatism group along with others We do not need to say she co-launched something when she did it along with others, that's what "co-" means.

Please reconsider the revert. Popcornfud (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

No objections here? Popcornfud (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It's been more than a week with no replies, so I've restored these changes. Popcornfud (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Quote

I disagree that a quote can be changed in any way whatsoever. Stick to what it says: exactly, without changing the words from American to British spelling. Apparently there is also a British English source for that 'center/centre' quote. Use it then. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

We do actually allow quotes to be changed, for a few reasons, such as typos — see MOS:TYPOFIX. Popcornfud (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Post-premiership (2022–present): Green Dragon Coalition Conference

In March 2024, Ms Truss' parliamentary register of interests showed that Ms Truss accepted a donation of just under £20,000 from an organisation called the Green Dragon Coalition, to attend their three-day conference held at a private hotel on Sea Island, located off the coast of Georgia between 2 and 4 February. This was reported by several UK national news outlets.
I had begun the process of adding the first reference to that section on the page[4] when the edit was removed as 'Not cited' and my second edit adding the text appended to the citation was removed for reason of 'no established notability here',[5] by @Tim O'Doherty before I could finish adding the citations and text in the page's chosen reference style.
I maintain that it's a notable addition to the section Post-premiership (2022-present): and disagree with what I perceived at the time to be a rather hasty removal, hence my creation of a new topic to discuss its inclusion.
The Green Dragon Coalition's donation to Ms. Truss was the largest donation of the total £32,000 she received for her tour of the US in February 2024 Liz Truss' tour of America in Februrary 2024 was notable as it began with a private conference organised by the Green Dragon Coalition, and attended by Liz Truss, Jordan Peterson and prominent backers of Donald Trump and culminated with her first speaking engagement at a CPAC conference, where she spoke alongside Donald Trump and Steve Bannon. Truss promoted her book's forthcoming release at CPAC and has since written that: "Trump back in the White House would also be a boost for UK-US relations."

• Wood, Poppy (14 March 2024). "Liz Truss accepted £20k trip to US right-wing event attended by Jordan Peterson". The Independent. Archived from the original on 14 March 2024. Retrieved 16 March 2024.
• Sennitt, Owen (14 March 2024). "Norfolk MP Liz Truss accepted £20k trip from US lobby group". BBC. Archived from the original on 16 March 2024. Retrieved 16 March 2024.
• ITV News Anglia (14 March 2024). "Liz Truss went on paid-for £20k trip for 'gathering of great minds' run by little-known US group". ITV News Anglia. Archived from the original on 20 March 2024. Retrieved 16 March 2024.
• Huskisson, Sophie (15 March 2024). "Liz Truss accepted £20,000 paid-for trip for 'gathering of great minds' by mysterious US group". Mirror Online. Retrieved 16 March 2024.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Smith, Mikey (23 March 2024). "Liz Truss enjoys £32,000 worth of freebie trips to USA in a single month". Mirror Online. Retrieved 23 April 2024.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• Truss, Liz (16 April 2024). "Liz Truss's American book tour". The Spectator World. Archived from the original on 16 April 2024. Retrieved 23 April 2024.

Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC) Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• • Per WP:NOTNEWS, we should not include material in a subject's biography if the only sources are news outlets within the event's news cycle. If the event becomes established as notable enough that it is covered by sources looking at Truss in retrospect, then (and only then) it should be added under WP:DUEWEIGHT. Public figures generate a lot of news coverage and their articles would rapidly become uselessly huge if we did not have some filter to keep the vast majority of it out of their biographies until a higher standard for inclusion were met. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

    +1 - my thoughts exactly. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think coverage of Truss's recent antics falls under WP:NOTNEWS. They have been extensively covered in multiple reliable sources now, and I haven't seen this same logic applied on any other articles for other major political figures, such as Donald Trump, etc — at least not quite so strictly. Popcornfud (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't aspire to turn this article into the long twisted mess that is Trump's bloated page. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

If they've been covered in multiple reliable sources that are not news articles (or are news articles outside the cycle: for example, at the risk of being macabre, an obituary when one eventually comes about), then WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply and they should be included. Whether the policy has been applied in other articles is not the point here: this is a Featured Article and we would expect it to uphold Wikipedia's standards to a higher degree than most pages. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, touche on both points — the Trump article is not a good example to point to, and if I were me, I'd respond with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS too. I'll just say I feel the coverage of a lot of this stuff is sufficient to satisfy my bar for WP:NOTNEWS, and there we clearly disagree. I do not think that something has to be reported in a non-news source to be useable; for example, if Truss died today, we would surely immediately add that information. Popcornfud (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Incorrect grammar / semantics

"started the week prior".

"Prior" is used to relate the time sequence of two events and requires both events to be provided, thus: event A occurred prior to event B.

The correct choice of word in the article would be "previous", thus: *started the previous week". 86.160.228.56 (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Umm… so your claim is that prior “is used to relate the time sequence of two events” but not previous… Transient Being (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Good obit

This excellent Politico political obituary offers some quotable overview. It's not yet cited. 203.218.207.123 (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

As at/as of

I see that under someone has written do not change "as at" to "as of". Is "as of" not correct, considering that the present is a time that has already passed, and so "of" reflects this. Ellwat (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree from a grammar POV. However, I believe this point was discussed during the Featured Article nomination process and "at" agreed on – possibly by non-British/Irish contributors Billsmith60 (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

As a native BrE speaker, I find "as of" more natural but don't see a particular problem with "as at". Strictly, I think "as of Monday" means "this became true on Monday and remains so thereafter", whereas "as at Monday" means "this was true on Monday, but perhaps is no longer so". Generally speaking, we try to follow whatever is the most common and clearest usage, but there's some mileage in deferring to those who have put the work into polishing up an article when deciding matters of taste. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree! Billsmith60 (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

'As of' is correct. 'as at 2024' is horrendous and non-standard.

Also, someone has put a quote in using US English spelling, despite this being a page about a UK politician. 2.101.101.104 (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

IP, ”As at” is good, formal British English. “As of” is an American interloper, although more favoured in common and lowly use nowadays.

If you could identify the quote it would help, but you should note that if it was originally in AmEng, that is the version we should display. - SchroCat (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

'As of' to mean 'at the present time' is AmE. In BrE it means, more or less, 'from': 'As of next week, this supermarket will be open until 10 p.m. on Thursdays.' 'As at' means it's true now (at the time of writing) but isn't guaranteed to remain true: 'As at 5 July 2024, Rishi Sunak is the leader of the Conservative Party.' Both expressions are probably best avoided in an international encyclopedia. Snugglepuss (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Given recent edits and indeed political changes, I think this long-running point is now moot -- the "offending" phrase has gone. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Bathrobes

Nothing about bathrobes? 116.255.43.81 (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Nope. She was billed 120 quid to replace some cloth from Chevening. Not a massive deal. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested Edit

Can someone add the sentence: "Truss is the third female UK prime minister, after Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May."? Preferably somewhere in the lede/introductory paragraph. I believe it is a relevant fact and justifiable addition to the article. Thank you.66.91.36.8 (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This article has gone through Featured Article review and that point is immaterial for its lead Billsmith60 (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Mark Field

Can a new section be added on Mark Field? 88.97.108.45 (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It's there: see § Employment and candidatures, paragraph 4. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)