Talk:Liz Truss

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78.19.224.254 (talk) at 00:52, 24 July 2022 (→‎Extramarital Affair: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
freeBMD has a Mary Elizabeth Truss born in 1975 but not a "Elizabeth Mary". Nedrutland (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sure, I think this is the other one. TwistedSnowflake (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 shold also be a link to FIeld's WP article? 78.19.224.254 (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liz_Truss&oldid=1100055816"