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 LutherBlissetts (talk | contribs) at 09:13, 23 April 2024 (→‎Post-premiership (2022–present): Green Dragon Coalition Conference: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleLiz Truss is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 5, 2023Peer reviewReviewed
October 25, 2023Featured article candidatePromoted
In the newsNews items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 6, 2022, and October 20, 2022.
Current status: Featured article

Sources
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. ISBN 978-1-39-981029-6.
  • Truss, Liz (2024). Ten Years to Save the West. Biteback Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78-590857-6.
  • Shipman, Tim (2024). Out: How Brexit Got Done and Four Prime Ministers Were Undone. William Collins. ISBN 978-0-00-830894-0.
  • Seldon, Anthony; Meakin, Jonathan (2024). Truss at 10: 49 Days That Changed Britain. Atlantic Books. ISBN 978-1-80-546213-2.
  • Seldon, Anthony; Meakin, Jonathan; Thoms, Illias; Egerton, Tom (2024). The Impossible Office?: The History of the British Prime Minister—Revised and Updated. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-009-42977-1.

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)[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. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! Billsmith60 (talk) 11:00, 16 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]

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)[reply]

Your prose edits later down the paragraph are also not improvements. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of this specific edit, why choose a referencing system few know how to use? Marginataen (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've undone the edit for now until I get to look deeper into it Marginataen (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
I am sorry Marginataen (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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]

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)[reply]

No objections here? Popcornfud (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been more than a week with no replies, so I've restored these changes. Popcornfud (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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

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]

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

  1. ^ a b c Wood 2024.
  2. ^ Sennitt 2024.
  3. ^ ITV News Anglia 2024.
  4. ^ Huskisson 2024.
  5. ^ Smith 2024.
  6. ^ Truss 2024. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFTruss2024 (help)