Talk:Liz Truss#rfc DF63311

It is incorrect to assert that every other PM's deputy appears there; see Gordon Brown, for instance Billsmith60 (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

:His First Secretary of State, equivalent to DPM, is there. TheHandofFear (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

::Could other users please chip in on a debate Tim O'Doherty and I are having regarding the inclusion of the Deputy PM (DPM) in the Infobox?

::It seems clear to me that the DPM should be included, given this is the case with other comparable articles including Keir Starmer, Boris Johnson, Tony Blair and Rishi Sunak.

::Tim O'Doherty hasn’t provided any reasoning for the exclusion of DPM, yet continues to revert the inclusion, so I have taken this here in order to avoid edit-warring. TheHandofFear (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

:::It's certainly notable enough to be included, as it was the first time both positions were held by a female. This is Paul (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

:::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)

::::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. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I notice somebody has put up the (rather snide and trite) comment that "the lettuce outlasted her". This is not a greatly encyclopaedic tone and has already been addressed through the quite lengthy piece on the confidence crisis, appointment of Hunt, departure of Braverman, fracking vote, Brady meeting and resignation speech{{emdash}}all which happened in the space of a week following the stunt being set up, as is mentioned. In the Guardian source (incorrectly formatted for this article, which is unfortunate but not surprising) the statement does not appear to be found once: nor does the word "lettuce" even look to be mentioned once in sixteen scrolling pages, aside from the video link at the top, which also does not say anything like the "information" added. I'm not sure I'd class this as a "featured article" anymore, really. It's certainly not at the standard it was even a year ago, and not helped by importing things like this at all. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:Well, {{u|Tim O'Doherty}}, when it comes to "rather snide and trite" comments, "unfortunate but not surprising" might conform. Unfortunately you do not make clear what Guardian article you are referring too. The first, added by {{u|Pigsonthewing}} may not have verified it (although the material may have been in the video, I haven't checked). However, the second―different―Guardian article that I added clearly satisfies WP:V in spades. I note that the material regarding the head of lettuce has been in the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liz_Truss&oldid=1181780557 since promotion]. All that said was that a livestream had been started. It's ridiculous to mention how something started—by now two years ago—and not mention how it ended. The article now does this. It satisfactorily explains to the reader the results of the livestream, compared to the previous version. I agree that the styling was slightly sloppy: of course the lettuce didn't outlast her, since the lettuce has wilted and truss is, thank goodness, still very much with us, so I have clarified that it was her premiership that was outlasted rater than her.{{pb}}It's odd to suggest that the article would fail a FAC nomination due to five words of clarification and a formattable citation. WP:FAR is probably the place to find out. Cheers, SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 23:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::The difference, SN, which surely doesn't need to be explained as I know you to be brighter than this, is between a disgruntled comment on a Wikipedia talk page versus an uncited public jab at an ex-Prime Minister on what is nominally a featured article. The information is not in the video{{emdash}}the video in our now-departed Grauniad source, I should clarify{{emdash}}and there is nothing ridiculous about mentioning that something happened when the focus is very much on that it did: the point of inclusion is that the lettuce stunt was set up at all. And of course, the problems of the article run much deeper than what has happened today. Fourteen months on from promotion and the article is in a miserable state (which is not to sound ungrateful to those who have helped mitigate that, by the way). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:::It's odd that you removed my question from your talk page, asking why you removed my addition with the edit summary "Already stated", claiming to have moved it here, when your post here has no reference to my question or your edit summary. Perhaps you now realise that your edit summary was a fallacy.

:::The addition does not "trivialise" anything, nor is it "snide" or "trite". It completes the story of the episode for the benefit of readers who do not - unlike, presumably, those in this discussion - know what happened in the incident.

::: Of course it should stay. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Nothing has been removed from my talk page. Maybe you should think over whether your addition was an improvement to the article, with {{tq|engaging prose of a professional standard}} and {{tq|citations for verification against high-quality reliable sources}} two major qualities of a featured article, and of which both were lacking in your addition. And of course, Truss's resignation was already mentioned, and of course, the "story" of the Star lettuce does not need to be "completed" in an article not about the Star lettuce. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::::To repeat: this article has been through a Featured Article review and requires no significant changes unless something glaring has been missed. A trivial sentence about a topic covered more than sufficiently demeans the article's credibility and should be removed Billsmith60 (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Something glaring was missed. It was fixed. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::If adding unverified text counts as "fixing", I suppose. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::There is no consensus (yet) on keeping this in. Should none occur, it'll be removed Billsmith60 (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::I agree that "the lettuce outlasted her [with or without adding 'premiership']" trivialises a FA and should be removed. The previous sentence more than adequately covers the issue Billsmith60 (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with Bill. By nature, this article is an exercise in filtering a very large amount of potential details into a much smaller set of those we consider notable and important (WP:SUMMARYSTYLE). That particular detail doesn't make the cut, in my opinion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Sentence removed. No consensus here for keeping it Billsmith60 (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{+1}} — Czello ^(music) 08:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Why does this article have pictures of Cameron, Johnson and Sunak? Is it really necessary for a biography article. Unless Truss is in the picture with one of them, I don't see these pictures as necessary. LibStar (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:I'd say it's to make this FA more informative and to set the context of Truss' career. Images also break up walls of text Billsmith60 (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no mention of her extra marital affairs of which one is a matter of record. Clean Arlene (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:Her affair with Field is in the article: search through for "affair" and you'll find it discussed in the appropriate chronological place. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)