Talk:Liz Truss

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)

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)

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)

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&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:06, 11 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&#39;Doherty (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect link for "The Independent"
An article from the Independent is mentioned. However when you click on "The Independent", it takes you to the incorrect wikipedia page for the newspaper/website. Jmacri36 (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Fixed, thanks. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Source work name
Hi @Tim O'Doherty, can you explain the reasoning behind this edit please. Although their printed paper newspaper was called The Independent, their web work is simply called Independent. The cites in this article are all of their web work, none are of their print work (which is no longer even published), so why do we use the name of the print work, even though it is not cited? -- DeFacto (talk). 23:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It is nonstandard. It's also internally inconsistent: we have The Daily Telegraph (universally used for quality PM articles) rather than The Telegraph, which is its online brand. This has been through FAC, which examines source formatting. I've done GANs where I've been asked to format the names of works differently: this is a tier above that. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that we need consistency, but in my view we should be consistently correct, and not sometimes consistent in name, regardless of correctness. As far as I can see, all of the news media publications being cited in this article are web works, so surely we should use the names used by the publishers of those web works, and not the name of one of their sister publications, or the name of one of their historical predecessors - that would be consistency. Using anything other than the publication's actual published name is just plain misrepresenting the name of the work. That would apply to all the news media web works, including the defunct The Independent's descendent web work, the "Independent", and the The Daily Telegraph "The Telegraph", yes.
 * You say using just "Independent" in cites for the name of works that are called just "Independent" is "nonstandard" - where is the standard that you are applying documented? Does it have a look-up table giving the names that are acceptable for each of the news web media works that are likely to be used?
 * Talking of consistency, I notice that the web work known as "The Telegraph" is referred to as both "the Telegraph", "The Daily Telegraph" in the prose, and "The Daily Telegraph" or "The Sunday Telegraph" in citations. We also have cites of web works called "The Sunday Times" cited as both "The Times" and as "The Sunday Times".
 * And looking at one of the other PM article you linked in above, in the ADH one, we see in cites the work name correctly given as "The Manchester Guardian" in a cite of the printed newspaper when that was its name, and correctly given as "The Guardian" in cites of the same newspaper after its name change. Is that inconsistent and nonstandard too?
 * But anyway, what I am trying to understand, is why we should use incorrect, even if historically related, names for web works in this article? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tim O'Doherty, a penny for your thoughts on this. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Re paragraph 3: the prose isn't relevant. I've looked through those references and can't find a single example. Can you point one out? Re paragraph 4: if we're treating the Douglas-Home article's Manchester Guardian as the standard to follow on this article, then the Independent sources here before going web-only in 2016 should, by that logic, be the full The Independent. We have two such sources from 2014: should we change those? It certainly branded itself as "The Independent" online then. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tim O'Doherty, Re para 3, the references citing the web work called "The Telegraph":
 * 1 using the name "The Sunday Telegraph" -
 * 1 of 14 using the name "The Daily Telegraph" -
 * Re para 4, you make a good point. I was looking at the current online versions of them - and they are both branded just "Independent". I think we should stick with what they were called when they were first published. And suppress the current versions, leaving just the contemporaneous archive version in the cite perhaps - as who knows what else might have changed?
 * Thanks for taking the time to respond. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth noting that they self describe as 'The Independent' - see for example their privacy policy (last updated July 2024) at https://www.independent.co.uk/service/privacy-policy-a6184181.html
 * At The Independent we respect your privacy and are committed to protecting your personal information. This privacy policy is for visitors to our websites, apps and other digital platforms. It sets out how we collect, use, disclose, and protect personal data that we hold about you. It also gives information on how to exercise your legal rights. In this policy ‘we’ and ‘our’ means Independent Digital News and Media Limited.
 * Or their cookie policy (also last updated July 2024) at https://www.independent.co.uk/service/cookie-policy-a6184186.html
 * If you wish to browse The Independent for free, you can choose to consent to the use of cookies and similar technologies which we will use to serve relevant personalised advertising and to improve our service (including the use of analytics). Please see our Privacy Policy for more information about this.
 * Ieya (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2024
Change Lord Chancellor to Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain as Shabana Mahmood has it and all LCs should have it. 86.147.210.198 (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Not done – no need, and example cited does not use this term Billsmith60 (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that Lord High Chancellor is a former title of the office now known as Lord Chancellor so not in current use. In fact, the Lord Chancellor article begins: The Lord Chancellor, formally titled Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain.... This is Paul (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing "former" and "formal"! Please note, though, that this IP user is the banned editor "Earl of Sutton Coldfield", AKA "Mr Hall of England". Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah yes...so I am. It's not a term in common use though. This is Paul (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)