This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2022, when it received 11,778,117 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report5 times. The weeks in which this happened:
Upcoming or recent sources that can be used to improve the article
Riley-Smith, Ben (2023). The Right to Rule: Thirteen Years, Five Prime Ministers and the Implosion of the Tories. Hodder & Stoughton. ISBN978-1-39-981029-6.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. UndercoverClassicistT·C 14:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Really? Johnson,[1] May[2] and Thatcher[3] all bitterly complained about others ousting them from office. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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—titledTen 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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Post-premiership (2022–present): Green Dragon Coalition Conference[edit]
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.[1][2][3][4]
I had begun the process of adding the first reference to that section on the page[1] 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',[2] 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[5] 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[1] and culminated with her first speaking engagement at a CPAC conference, where she spoke alongside Donald Trump and Steve Bannon.[1] 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."[6]
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. UndercoverClassicistT·C 09:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. UndercoverClassicistT·C 13:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
