Jump to content

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 Stephanie921 (talk | contribs) at 19:06, 9 September 2022 (→Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 September 2022). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]

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

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

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thank god common sense prevailed.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks, I wasn't aware of those policies. Richard Nowell (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth is going on with her name (again?) Billsmith60 (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[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 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)[reply]
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)[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 should also be a link to Mark Field's WP article? 78.19.224.254 (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That makes sense to me Billsmith60 (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A 'PPE' BA, as noted in Early Life Billsmith60 (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Written shortly after the announcement - so a suitable time to consider suchmatters. Jackiespeel (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what u mean @User:Jackiespeel pls could u elaborate Stephanie921 (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The announcement of LT being elected as party leader. Jackiespeel (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 September 2022

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

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. P M C 22:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 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)[reply]
Seriously RayAdvait (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not a hugh issue...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

Her worth.

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

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

Her budget constraints reduced water pollution improvements

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

She greenlighted gas storage closure reducing capacity by 70%

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

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)[reply]

How did she accrue a fortune of 8.4 million pounds

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Venkat TL: There was no "electoral history" section on this two days ago [1]. 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Fair point. It isn’t crucial to the article.—TrottieTrue (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Proposed merge of Electoral history of Liz Truss into Liz Truss

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)[reply]

  • 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 [2] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose - as above. This material has standalone quality. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Done, but I don't ping – or know how to. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thanks good work :) Richard Nowell (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Absurd proposal. She is universally known as Liz Truss. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The official website of the US presidency has a profile for William J. Clinton [3], 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)[reply]
No. We're not an arm of Parliament. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Oppose. She's known as Liz Truss. TrottieTrue (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'd imagine Anthony/Tony Blair would be a more apt comparison. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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." [4] 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liz_Truss&oldid=1109424539"