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 a 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. For that reason, 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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It is nonstandard. It's also internally inconsistent: we have The Daily Telegraph (universally used forqualityPMarticles) 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'Doherty (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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's "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)[reply]
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 brandeditself as "The Independent" online then. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty, Re para 3, the references citing the web work called "The Telegraph":
1 using the name "The Sunday Telegraph" - {{cite news |last=Diver |first=Tony |date=3 October 2021 |title=Transgender people should not have right to self-identify without medical checks, Liz Truss says |work=[[The Sunday Telegraph]] |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/03/transgender-people-should-not-have-right-self-identify-without/ |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=24 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220730152838/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/03/transgender-people-should-not-have-right-self-identify-without/ |archive-date=30 July 2022}}
1 of 14 using the name "The Daily Telegraph" - {{Cite news |last=Yorke |first=Harry |date=29 August 2020 |title=Liz Truss to set out ambition for a 'gold standard' trade deal with Australia |work=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/29/liz-truss-set-ambition-gold-standard-trade-deal-australia/ |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=24 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200829204911/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/29/liz-truss-set-ambition-gold-standard-trade-deal-australia/ |archive-date=29 August 2020}}
Re para 4, you make a good point. I was looking at the current online versions of them - and they are bothbranded 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?
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.
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.
Not done: Blocked editors may not have edit requests in the queue to be considered per the spirit of WP:EVADE. If another editor happens to see these discussions, and happens to agree, they may make the edit at their own discretion. —Sirdog(talk) 00:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a discussion is required about removing the bit about Truss attending the Republican Party convention and meeting the new VP nominee. Truss will always be a notable person – like any recent PM, for example – and her article won't suddenly end in July 2024. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's definitely (going to be?) a thread about how Truss has tried to pivot towards various right-wing political and media groups in the US post her premiership, but whether we've got enough to write it yet I don't know. I'd need convincing that "conservative person attends conservative event" is inherently notable, unless (for example) she was specifically invited, or her presence was commented on -- something like 50,000 people came to Milwaukee for the convention. UndercoverClassicistT·C09:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose my point is as much about her attendance being referenced via a wonderful article in the Independent about British political rejects. Had she met Trump there, like Johnson did (with a photo), that would surely have been notable? Billsmith60 (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm not sure I'm convinced for either of them, especially if the "meeting" is just a handshake and a photo-op: that's pretty WP:ROUTINE business for two high-profile politicians, and political figures routinely travel to events with each other and seek out photographs with each other. If he sat down with her to talk about policy for half an hour, that would be a different story. Similarly, if it were part of a bigger narrative about Truss courting figures like Trump, it would work, but it would also seem a bit orphaned on its own. Others may take a different view, of course. UndercoverClassicistT·C11:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Blocked editors may not have edit requests in the queue to be considered per the spirit of WP:EVADE. If another editor happens to see these discussions, and happens to agree, they may make the edit at their own discretion. —Sirdog(talk) 00:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Starmer, Johnson, Blair and Sunak's articles are not FAs so modelling this article on those is not a good idea. Per MOS:IB, the infobox should "exclude unnecessary content": that Thérèse Coffey was deputy prime minister from September to October 2022 is unnecessary information for this article's infobox. The deputy prime minister is practically a non-job, only filled a handful of times throughout history (especially for Tory DPMs, although the role has become more important post-Truss, according to Anthony Seldon), and not at all like the American vice president, which is a much more significant and well-defined role. Who was deputy prime minister under Truss is not the type of info needed in the infobox of this biographical article. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Tim. The title is a bit of a red herring: with a few notable exceptions (Nick Clegg, for instance), the DPM isn't a "number two" or, in any meaningful sense, more important than other major cabinet figures -- the next one down the hierarchy is usually the Chancellor. Given the prominent place of the parameter at the top of the infobox, it isn't WP:DUEWEIGHT to put Coffey up there, given what WP:HQRS say about the relative ranking and prominence of Coffey versus other senior ministers (Kwarteng, for instance) under Truss. Further agreed that "other articles do it" is neither here nor there, since Wikipedia is not a reliable source and those articles, by and large, have undergone no major review or endorsement by the community. UndercoverClassicistT·C19:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: Blocked editors may not have edit requests in the queue to be considered per the spirit of WP:EVADE. If another editor happens to see these discussions, and happens to agree, they may make the edit at their own discretion. —Sirdog (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC).jpg)
