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.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.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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]
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—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)[reply]
Well, 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 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 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.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, SerialNumber54129A New Face in Hell23:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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—the video in our now-departed Grauniad source, I should clarify—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)[reply]
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.
Nothing has been removed from my talk page. Maybe you should think over whether your addition was an improvement to the article, with engaging prose of a professional standard and 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. UndercoverClassicistT·C20:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
