Talk:Boris Johnson/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Children

I notice this keeps being changed so I'm not going to engage in an editing war, but the minimum number should be 6. He had four children with Marina Wheeler and another with Helen Macintyre, and now one with Carrie Symonds. There are rumoured to be more but it's probably best to just stick with the known ones. Simonr116 (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Whoever is engaging in an editing war regarding this is obviously politically motivated: the sources cited expressly say that the actual number is unknown, but is [i]at least[/i] 6 (although older sources don't include the latest, for obvious reasons). The number should be edited to reflect the true information contained in the sources: unknown, at least 6.86.169.72.81 (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

What is 'political' about the number of children? All that matters is verifiable accuracy, I think. Speculation can be discussed (assuming due weight) in the article, but the infobox should only contain facts. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

He has repeatedly and quite famously refused to confirm how many children he has, as the sources make clear. I agree that the infobox should only contain facts, which is why it should properly reflect the content of the sources. "Unknown", "at least 6", or "6 (known)" would all reflect this, as would removing the "children" entry entirely (as it is not a known fact). Simply providing a number which the sources expressly state is not known to be a fact is not, in fact, a fact - it is mere conjecture. I struggle to think of a non-political motivation for doing so. We must follow the sources.86.169.72.81 (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

But WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH requires we do not draw conclusions from refusal to confirm. Sure there are press speculations, but we need verifiability, especially per WP:BLP. Please explain why you think the need for factual accuracy and compliance with Wiki policies is a politically inspired. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The need for factual accuracy is precisely what I am arguing here. Stating a certain number as a fact when it is not supported by any of the sources, all of which observe that the exact number is disputed, is synthesis. NPOV requires accurately reporting what the sources say, and the sources say that the number is unknown. 86.169.72.81 (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there are 5 confirmed/acknowledged (4 before and 1 born today) and, as far as I can tell, 2 speculated. I think we should stick with the ones he has acknowledged in the infobox. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources say that there are 6 known (4 from a previous marriage, 1 from an affair and 1 today), but expressly note that there may be more (see my comment above).86.169.72.81 (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

We have 4 by Marina Wheeler, 1 by Helen Macintyre[2], and now 1 by Carrie Symonds. However not all sources are confident to report the 5 children and state "Believed to have...". IMO 5-6 seems the most accurate compromise considering this uncertainty.Battleofalma (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, so the consensus amongst the sources is 5 confirmed. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources only agree on 5, others are speculative, so have no place in the infobox. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple press sources confirming the existence of a child with Helen Macintyre, per the court ruling that prevented the parentage from being covered up. That is not speculation. Simonr116 (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

That makes 6 then, not "6 or 7" that the article currently says. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It should say 6. Someone else appears to have changed it. Simonr116 (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The current sources, in the infobox, say this:

The Independent 29 November 2019: "The prime minister has four children with his ex-wife Marina Wheeler and a daughter from an extra-marital affair, but he is also believed to have fathered another child outside of his marriage.

The Guardian 29 November 2020: "It is known that Johnson has four children with his estranged wife, Marina, and it is believed he has one or possibly more offspring from other relationships, though Johnson has always refused to discuss this."

The Guardian, 29 April 2020: "Johnson already has four children with his second wife, the barrister Marina Wheeler: Lara Lettice, 26, Milo Arthur, 24, Cassia Peaches, 22, and Theodore Apollo, 20. ... He also has another child fathered during an extra-marital affair while he was mayor of London. Johnson has repeatedly refused to disclose publicly how many children he has."

The other sources in the article main body provide not support any more children than this. So I'd suggest the words "or 7" should be removed. I think to add the word "(known)" after the number "6" would also require some other source(s). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Having investigated a little further, the consensus from a previous archived talk in November was for it to read "At least 5". It was then changed to "5 or 6" in a mobile edit with no edit summary on 15 February. This was all before Carrie Symonds' pregnancy was announced on 29 February. I suggest we follow on from the previous consensus and that it should now read "At least 6".. Simonr116 (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. That is loaded, non-NPOV and unsupportable per WP:BLP and WP:VER. We should not speculate and cannot draw our own conclusions per WP:SYNTH. All we can support with the sources we have is that he has 6. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. In that case "6" would appear to be the most acceptable solution here and "or 7" should definitely be removed. Simonr116 (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources quoted above literally say "he is also believed to have fathered another child outside of his marriage" (Independent) and "it is believed he has one or possibly more offspring from other relationships" (Guardian). These are reliable sources. Saying "6" here when the sources do not support this is synthesis. NPOV means accurately reflecting the actual sources, which do not support "6". This should be qualified in some way ("known", "(disputed)", "at least" - whatever seems the least loaded), or removed entirely. Otherwise we are knowingly misrepresenting the sources cited. 86.169.72.81 (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPGOSSIP (part of WP:BLP), imploring us to avoid repeating gossip, says: "Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." These sources use weasel words and do not name the sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

6 (disputed) might be a good way of settling this given that it is clearly a matter of public controversy, and Johnson has always refused to give a specific number himself. Simonr116 (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has left out this source from the 'Personal life' section: The Guardian, 21 May 2013: "Macintyre's daughter is alleged to be the second child conceived by Johnson as a result of extramarital affairs, the court heard during hearings last year." The fact that another child was alleged in court means the allegation should at least be mentioned. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem with that source and other sources alluding to another child, though, is that they are extrapolating from what the judge in the court case actually said. The judge said "this is the second time that he has (or may have) caused a woman who was not his wife to become pregnant". It is unclear if this was referring to an existing child, or to Petronella Wyatt's terminated pregnancies (which are mentioned in the article body). Simonr116 (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This issue was settled ages ago when it was decided that “5 or 6” was acceptable. Cummings’ minions shouldn’t be allowed to use the birth of ANOTHER child as an opportunity to REDUCE the number of kids that Johnson reportedly has. I’d prefer it to say “6 or 7” but I’ll settle for “At least 6”. CarlosTheBadger (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you've misplaced his possessive there. But perhaps you have a handy list we could refer to? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel I should point out that the article was at "5 or 6" for some time without complaints. Earlier today somebody changed it to "6 or 7", fairly logically I would have thought. It was only when I attempted to clarify this in the article that I appear to have stirred up a hornet's nest. If people want to say something like "6 (known)" that's ok, but I think the article should mention that he has refused to clarify how many children he has, that can be confirmed by a number of reliable sources. PatGallacher (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@PatGallacher: the infobox entry went up to "7 or 8" at one point, and that allegation is already mentioned in the article, using loaded terms - in a very tabloidy/editorialising sort of way. There is a difference between "refused to confirm" and choosing not comment on them, or on his or their private lives. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It's clear from these previous conversations that the "5 or 6" wording was contentious. As I noted above, after the most recent discussion in November the line was changed to read "At least 5", but then was changed to "5 or 6" without any discussion in February. Simonr116 (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I supported "at least 5" back in December. But I now think similar wording in the infobox needs better sourcing in the article main body at least. Especially in regard to the point you make above about the comments in the judges' 2013 ruling (see para 43 here). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Neither The Independent nor The Guardian explain the origin for their "belief". Non-disclosure from Johnson, about his own private life, can't reasonably be interpreted as tacit agreement with the claims, can it? Especially as there have been prominent court cases about this subject. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Both are likely referring back to the original reports in 2013 which were, in themselves, inaccurate. I suspect Boris Johnson's refusal to answer the question "How many children do you have?" has more to do with him not wanting to publicly acknowledge his daughter with Helen Macintyre, than the existence of another child. We can't be sure of course, but the evidence is definitely inadequate at this stage. Simonr116 (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2020

Please can someone re-add the category, which I notice an editor removed months ago: Category:British politicians of Turkish descent HonkyDory64 (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Re-added. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2020

The following paragraph

"Johnson has been a controversial figure in British journalism and politics. Supporters have praised him as an entertaining, humorous, and popular figure, with an appeal stretching beyond traditional Conservative voters and Eurosceptics. Conversely, his critics have accused him of dishonesty, elitism, and cronyism, and of using offensive language. Johnson is the subject of several biographies and fictionalised portrayals."

requires a citation as none is provided. My recommendation is to add a "citation required" for each sentence since it's unqualified or for the paragraph as a whole.

P.S. How might we formulate these kinds of edit requests into "Change X to Y" requests?

Julianfortunas (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: As the <!--comment--> in that paragraph says, "THE INFORMATION IT CONTAINS IS FULLY SOURCED IN ARTICLE BODY." So I do not see any need to add a {{citation needed}} template to the article. Aasim 16:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Do we need a cite in the lead to use the word 'author'?

Reading the article, it is clear that - using the standard English definition of the word - Boris Johnson is an author. For that reason I added it to the lead (with no cite per WP:LEADCITE). However, there is another editor (Lawrencekhoo) who objects to the use of that word, apparently on the basis that that term in relation to the subject of this article needs a specific source. Sure we could easily re-use one of the many reliable sources already used in the main article for that, but do we think it is really necessary to support the standard use of a common English word with a specific cite for its use? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I also see no reason for any direct citation to support the word "author" in the lead. But just to help Lawrencekhoo, who seems unable to search for sources themselves for some reason, I've added three. Anyone is welcome to remove these once read and understood. The article main body has at least five WP:RS sources supporting the books Johnson has written. The Bibliography section lists 11 books written by Johnson, all with ISBNs. That makes him "an author", in my book. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

There is also documentation that Boris Johnson is divorcee. That's not in the lead, because it's not intrinsic to his notability. It's documented that Gandhi wrote several books, however, we do not describe Gandhi as an author. That's because no one describes Gandhi as an author. It's not enough to show that a person did a thing. Not everything a person did is in the lead sentence. WP:BLPLEAD directs that a person should be described in the lead "as they are commonly described in reliable sources". The Encyclopedia Britannica describes Johnson as a politician and former journalist. Unless and until it is shown that reliable sources commonly describe him otherwise, this should stand. We should follow Wikipedia guidelines here, especially in the lead. LK (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The analogy between "divorcee" and "author" does not really stand, in my view. No-one (or virtually no-one) is notable because they are a divorcee; plenty of people are notable because they are an author. Johnson has written quite a few books and some have been best-sellers. That seems enough to warrant the inclusion of "author" in the lede sentence, which has been there for many years. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Does the "Bibliography" section need any source(s)? One of the sources I added to the lead earlier, for illustrative purposes, was Waterstones here. Would a commercial site such as this be acceptable? If not, any other suggestions welcome, if any source is actually needed, that is. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No need for a citation in the lead, especially since some of his books have achieved notability in their own right. And there's certainly a case for adding "author" to the lead sentence for Gandhi. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. But for the "Bibliography" section? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your question. Ideally every fact outside of the intro gets cited somewhere, so... yes. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

OK. And a commercial source, like Waterstones? I thought that might be a good one, as it even lists future planned publications and "publications abandoned". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

1993 divorce or annulment

Revisiting this previous discussion, I noticed that Purnell says on page 197-198 of the version I have to hand, Once Allegra learned about the baby, she agreed to an accelerated divorce but Boris was also required to produce various crucial items of paperwork speedily and The divorce finally came through on 26 April 1993. I'd suggest that we state that some sources say it was a divorce and others that it was an annulment. SmartSE (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

/* Defence of Cummings */

Feels like at least a sentence on his handling of the whole Cummingsgate affair in the COVID-19 section is merited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:2100:AB00:D8C1:6E8A:75A4:15E1 (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

There should be mention of this. Recognising that there was a national outcry is not the same statement as the entire nation was collectively outraged as reverters accuse my contribution of. The sources supplied clearly show this. There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia which include the different controversies surrounding public figures, it doesn't mean that everyone agrees with the outrage. This is one of the biggest controversies Johnson has had in his premiership. Cbowsie (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not really about Johnson, though. Maybe if there's some lasting impact on him then it will be worth mentioning, but at the moment it looks like WP:RECENTISM. EddieHugh (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy to commit assault

Boris Johnson's involvement in the 1990 conspiracy to have the journalist Stuart Collier 'beaten up' is on tape and must be referenced. Despite the planned assault not coming to fruition, Johnson's involvement shows his ease with breaking the law and his lack of care for other humans. Since the incident, Collier has publicly asked for an apology but none has been made. Olihutch (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

According to that source, Johnson said that he played along to keep his friend happy, and then... nothing happened – not even a conspiracy. That's not worth mentioning. This is an encyclopedia, not an account of everything that has ever been reported about someone. EddieHugh (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Upper-middle class parents

The article states that Boris was born to upper-middle class parents. This is absolutely ridiculous. His father was an eminent diplomat, and he was educated at Eton. That's elite, not upper-middle class. Will somebody change it? Grapesofraph (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

"Elite" and "upper middle class" are not mutually exclusive. As the phrase is generally understood in Britain, "Upper middle class" means "posh, but not part of the aristocracy". -- Alarics (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, Boris was a scholarship boy at Eton (so paid low or no fees). Also, his father was an EU bureaucrat not a diplomat, still less an "eminent diplomat". -- Alarics (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The relevant current definitions (at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned) are Social class in the United Kingdom#Upper middle class vs Social class in the United Kingdom#Upper class. Charlotte might have a stronger claim on "upper class" than Stanley, but only by virtue of the knighthood of her father James Fawcett, who was a barrister. Stanley's Turkish ancestors, via Bournemouth, can hardly be considered English gentry! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

All good points - I was ill-informed.

He is very much so. Upper class means totled or aristocracy in the UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.249.184.244 (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: socially liberal stance and LGBT rights in intro

Should the lead section of this article state that while serving as an MP between 2001 and 2008 Johnson "largely adhered to the Conservatives' party line but adopted a socially liberal stance on issues such as LGBT rights in parliamentary votes"? 23:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• No. Per MOS:LEADREL, the intro should be reflective of the article, both in terms of content and amount space given to each topic. Johnson has now served as Mayor of London, spearheaded the Brexit campaign and become Prime Minister, which (understandably) makes for an extremely long article. The line in the intro represents no more than one sentence, in the middle of the "Becoming an MP" section (under Early Career). It would be just as due to paraphrase the previous line in that paragraph and say he "largely adhered to the Conservatives' party line but only attended about half of votes in his first two terms". Additionally, it gives the impression that he actively rebelled on votes relating to LGBT rights, which isn't true – the only two relevant votes mentioned in the article (in that one sentence) were both free votes, with fairly even numbers of Conservative MPs voting for and against. Given that pretty much any of his actions as a non-shadow cabinet MP in opposition are insignificant compared with anything he does as Prime Minister, I would cut the qualification entirely and merge the rest into the previous line: After being elected MP for Henley in 2001, Johnson served as a junior Shadow Minister under Conservative leaders Michael Howard and David Cameron, and largely adhered to the Conservatives' party line. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 23:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• No. At least currently it's treated as a very trivial part of his bio - it's one sentence in a five-paragraph section on his MP, cited to a single source. The lead reference elevates it to almost sound like a defining aspect of his tenure as a junior Shadow Minister, which is clearly WP:UNDUE and not supported by the text. Also, by my reading the lead bit actually misrepresents the body by making it seem like this happened later in his career than it did. --Aquillion (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• No - as above, it's clearly UNDUE given everything he's done and doing. At the time it might have warranted a single lead line, but no longer. (summoned by yapperbot) Nosebagbear (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Why not? But rewrite the whole paragraph instead. There's a determined effort to purge from the lead anything that hints at liberalism, and a stressing of anything that hints at an elite. We have the sneering "was born in New York City to upper-middle-class English parents and educated at Eton College" (there's nothing like that for Theresa May or Gordon Brown, but... surprise! there is for David Cameron). We have a summary of his short stay at The Times, despite that receiving only two sentences in the body (presumably it's in the lead because "he was dismissed for falsifying a quotation"). We have the editorialising "Johnson has been a controversial figure" (what leading politician is not? And this is sourced to London for Dummies and a Business Insider pictorial). So someone propose a totally re-written second paragraph that gets rid of the POV stuff on his childhood, The Times, and, yes, his voting history as a junior MP. Removing only undue things that point in the same direction, while leaving the undue things that point in the opposite direction, isn't what we should be aiming for. EddieHugh (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• No Unless he did something radical for the LGBT community, I don’t see how that’s leadworthy. Trillfendi (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• No I don't see how this fits in the lead. It seems undue attention given, especially when it's up for debate to what degree these votes were bucking the party line. TheSavageNorwegian 16:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• No I think it would be WP:UNDUE to do that because his voting record as an MP on homosexual and other social matters pre-Mayor day are minor footnotes in comparison to his Mayoral and PM record. Plus you would expect him to toe the party line like any other MP. IF he was a known persistent rebel like Dennis Skinner or Ken Clarke were, then yes but he wasn't so it doesn't need to be in the lead. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• No, because who cares what he did as a new MP? It was a long time ago and less significant than mayor, post-mayor, and premiership. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• No It doesn't have to be included in the lead, per TheSavage - Idealigic (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Notes

References

• Exclude. Seems just a blurb of no great WEIGHT, and ‘largely conservative’ is too obvious. LGBT may be worth some body remark, but not a big part of article so not WP:LEAD material. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Marital Status

Having failed to decide how Boris Johnson's first marriage to Allegra Mostyn-Owen ended, the positions of his second to Marina Wheeler and third marriage to Carrie Symonds now also seem unclear. The Tatler reported his divorce from Marina Wheeler in May as did the Sun and Daily Mail and New Indian Express and a pile of other sources, while the Economist has reported he had divorced and remarried this year. At least the last of these is deemed to be a reliable source. Rumping (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"British trump" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect British trump. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30#British trump until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't see it. Errantius (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Errantius: see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_August_8#..._Trump,_Trump_of_.... SmartSE (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Seeing it in that link. Thanks. Errantius (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

REMOVE the Australian of the Year from the honours section, after researching this he was not on the list or mentioned in any sub category.

here is the link of my source:https://australianoftheyear.org.au/recipients/listing/2014/ 2A02:C7F:18A9:2B00:540B:2886:7C24:57BA (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: the source currently given for him being Honorary Australian of the Year does support that he was given this award, so I'm not removing this from the list. Seagull123 Φ 16:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"Henley-on-Toast" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Henley-on-Toast. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 30#Henley-on-Toast until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CaptainGalaxy 23:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed new section: Parliamentary voting record

According to parliamentary monitoring website, TheyWorkForYou, Johnson has voted the same way as other Conservative MPs on the vast majority of issues. As of September 2020, his voting record shows the following trends:

• generally against laws to promote equality and human rights
• consistently for mass surveillance of people’s communications and activities
• almost against UK membership of the EU
• generally against a right to remain for EU nationals already in living in the UK
• generally for a stricter asylum system
• almost always for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits
• consistently for raising the threshold at which people start to pay income tax
• almost always for reducing the rate of corporation tax
• consistently against higher taxes on banks
• almost always against measures to prevent climate change

Any objections? 92.40.175.120 (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. We try to avoid lists, but more important: why did you choose this selection? They seem selected to present a particular perspective, which is WP:POV and another thing that we avoid. EddieHugh (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@EddieHugh: Not mentioning his voting record isn't a great option. I'm open to suggestions on improvement. 92.40.175.123 (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:POV. This is a clearly biased selection and Wikipedia is not a platform for activism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.177.112 (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Populism sidebar

The use of {{Populism sidebar}} strikes me as tendentious, especially as the claim that he is a populist is quite vaguely sourced in the article. (Not to mention the fact that no one really knows what the term means …) I'd suggest removing. What do others think? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, there has been a discussion on the use of these practically irrelevant or verging-on-POV-pushing sidebars here. Have removed. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization and pipes

Why should the article not comply with MOS:JOBTITLES, if not every other English language style guide in the world, regarding the capitalization of job titles? And why should it contain unnecessary pipes in contravention of WP:NOPIPE? An explanation when reverting explained edits is always helpful. Surtsicna (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Would suggest an RFC concerning all the bios of British prime ministers. Making changes to just one bio, that is part of a series of bios, should be avoided. More so, the British prime ministers are (to my knowledge) the only set of government leaders, where there's been a continued resistance to 'de-capitalisation'. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

We have had countless RfCs over MOS:JOBTITLES. It has been upheld every time. Having an RfC to determine whether a set of articles should be exempt from normal orthography would be quite ludicrous, I think. Surtsicna (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I know. But for some reason, the British prime ministers bios have been going against WP:JOBTITLES for a long time. Perhaps mentioning this resistance at WP:JOBTITLES might help. The only other route to take, would be WP:ANI. Anyways, FWIW - I support the changes you're proposing & inserting 'here', at David Cameron, etc. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I personally think that "British prime ministers" is an abomination. Yes, prime ministerality can exist as a general concept. But in 99% of cases, in article prose, it's used to refer to a class of specific individuals who held that post at the time. But rulez iz rulez, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that what anonymous editors (myself very much included) think about orthography is not relevant. What you describe as an abomination is the standard practice in academic literature and is recommended by virtually every authority on English orthography. Surtsicna (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: The article did comply with MOS:JOBTITLES before you felt the need to change it. Can we just use the full title Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to avoid getting bogged down in further discussion? Also, your edit warring was in violation of WP:BRD, even though your removal of unnecessary pipes is appreciated. Alex (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

It did not comply because foreign secretary, foreign secretaries, and prime minister should not be capitalized. What also should not be capitalized is secretaries of state for foreign and Commonwealth affairs ("not plural", MOS:JOBTITLES). Surtsicna (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Having just checked over many of the prime ministers bios of several Commonwealth realms. The Canadian prime ministers bios seem to be the only ones fully complying with MOS:JOBTITLES. A frustration situation, IMHO. I suspect this may be the same situation for all the bios of these Commonwealth realm governments, including governors general, finance ministers, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

There is always room for improvement. None of us have a magic wand, so the best we can do is take one step a time. Surtsicna (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

My correction at the intro at Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, sure lasted long :( GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Some things need explaining. You should not feel frustrated. Surtsicna (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

if Boris Johnson was born in 1964 he would currently be aged 57 years of age (NOT 56 years of age as stated on his wikipedia page) SUMMERCRUSH (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree this is now correct information SUMMERCRUSH (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: No, he's not had his birthday in June yet... His age is calculated automatically, and correctly. Volteer1 (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2021

Supporters of Johnson have praised him as optimistic, humorous and entertaining, with an appeal stretching beyond traditional Conservative voters. Conversely, his critics have accused him of elitism, cronyism, and prejudice. His actions that are viewed by supporters as pragmatic tend to be viewed by opponents as opportunistic.

Completely unsourced opinion piece, should be removed. 2A00:23C5:8110:FB00:E9D2:DA63:BBB1:7728 (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: most of it is sourced throughout the article. "humorous and entertaining, with an appeal stretching beyond traditional Conservative voters", and "his critics have accused him of elitism, cronyism" are both discussed and sourced throughout the article, and so you don't need add the citations in the lead. I can't seem to see anything discussing him being "optimistic" or that he is specifically accused of "prejudice", but possibly the accusations of sexism and racism discussed would suffice. Perhaps removing those two (or one?) words, or replacing them with other ones discussed in the the article would be sufficient. Volteer1 (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Midnightblueowl, who claims that it is sourced in the body. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think Volteer has hit the nail on the head with their comment. Johnson's comments on gay men, Africans, and those who wear the niqab have generated accusations of homophobia, racism, and Islamophobia (respectively) and it is probably easier to just summarise that as "prejudice" in the lead; although I would certainly be happy to discuss alternative wording. As for "optimistic", I had no role in incorporating that into the article, and if it is not sourced then it should be removed (although I imagine we could find a source to support it). Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I guess the only issue then is the lack of a source for "optimistic". Will this do, probably with a sentence about it in the 'Reception' section? Volteer1 (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I would make the point that he has not just been accused of elitism by critics - see reference 516, where his biographer describes him as an elitist, and 517, which refers to an article he wrote in support of elitism. Perhaps this can be reworded - e.g. "been widely described as an elitist"? "self described elitism"?. It might also be worth summarising some of the wider criticisms from e.g. the Economist, Max Hastings, Irish Times from the Reception section in the opener, which criticise him for being irresponsible or misleading. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Johnson's been around for long enough for us not to need to rely on single sources/voices – we should try to consolidate the body away from 'journalist x thinks ...', 'politician y said ...'. For instance, are there good reasons for quoting Max Hastings saying largely the same thing three times? So, no, we shouldn't try to incorporate more individual comments into the lead. And if the summary "optimistic" isn't well-sourced in the body, then it should be cut. (Dare I suggest that an attempt to look beyond the negative critics and towards the positive ones is called for, given that his party won a higher percentage of the vote than any since 1979 – we currently have two sentences on that, neither of which is about Johnson; surely there was more to his appeal than being "optimistic, humorous and entertaining".) EddieHugh (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't advocating to incorporate individual comments, but summarise some of the content of the article better, in this case the reception section, not just "journalist says x". I mean, you are right - this can definitely be better explained. By all means WP:BOLD if there are sources to elaborate. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

First Secretary of State

Should the First Secretary of State be listed in the Prime Minister's infobox in this article? As the position is not constitutionally significant, the position is invariably held and the position is merely honourific. Perhaps, if there were a Deputy Prime Minister then questionably that should be mentioned, however, this is not the case. Although, the role became more prominent when Dominic Raab had to deputise whilst the Prime Minister was in hospital due to Covid-19, if there had not been a First Secretary of State, he or another minister still could have just as easily deputised. DukeBiggie1 (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That's reserved for the deputy prime minister, when there's one. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I've only just seen this comment. I think that if we include Deputy Prime Ministers in Prime Minister's infoboxes, then there is no reason not to include First Secretaries of State too. As deputies, neither office has any legal standing, but they're both undoubtedly always de facto deputy offices. The only real difference between the two is semantic. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Except that argument doesn't follow for the coalition, whereupon Hague was First Secretary of State, but Clegg was official Deputy PM. The Deputy PM position is official and has its own page - it's usually not used when the Conservatives are in office. Spa-Franks (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The coalition was a unique situation, but both Clegg and Hague were both undoubtedly de facto deputies in that government and, in my view, both should be added to David Cameron's infobox. The Deputy Prime Minister office is also just as official as the First Secretary of State office, if not less so since it doesn't attract a salary by itself. And of the five official Deputy Prime Ministers that there have been, two have been Conservative MPs and four have served under a Conservative Prime Minister and so it's actually the other way around! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Mayoralty

Just saying, the section on his mayoralty could be expanded-upon and spun-off into an article titled Mayoralty of Boris Johnson. There is certainly a lot more that could be expounded upon about his mayoralty. SecretName101 (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2021

2A03:EC00:B18B:1D68:FD60:D70D:AC68:AED6 (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. J850NK (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Song

Content inserted into the article on 27 February 2021 (UK time) about a song "Boris Johnson is a Fucking C**t" is in my view not important enough for the article. It seems minor and trivial rather than encyclopedic. The content was inserted into the section "Reception" which features the views of authors, journalists and publications such as The Economist and The Irish Times. The fact that an anonymous dark comedian from Essex released this song (his real name has never been revealed) doesn't strike me as being particularly important for Johnson's biography or something that is vital to include. I have today reverted this inclusion into the article, as per WP:NOTNEWS.

I'm aware that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. However, my reason for the revert is not because personally I consider the content objectionable or offensive‍. It is on the grounds of being not important enough to include. The anonymous dark comedian also released a song in 2010 about the former Deputy Prime Minister of the UK, Nick Clegg, called "Use My Arsehole as a Cunt (The Nick Clegg Story)". I'd also feel that song would not be important enough to include in Nick Clegg's biography or if the dark comedian released a song about another senior British politician from any political party. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. There's a broader point about lots of people liking Johnson a lot and lots of people disliking him a lot, but that's already covered. EddieHugh (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I support Kind Tennis Fan decision concerning the song for the right reasons. It is easy to be sidetracked on an issue of offensive content and ignore if the content is truly newsworthy. I am sure there are many artists who are not well know who have included Johnson in their songs, but that by itself does not deem the song worthy of being included in this article simply by name connection. I believe there should be a greater tie, or more widely acknowledged contribution that makes a song (or picture or caricature) newsworthy and appropriate to include in an article. Jurisdicta (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021

212.44.18.43 (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Bojo

 Already done, see the "Public Persona" section: "Often known simply as "Boris", Johnson has attracted a variety of nicknames, including "BoJo", a portmanteau of his forename and surname." Volteer1 (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19

“Since February 2020, Johnson has led the United Kingdom's ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic.” I would just like to point out that, as the first case was on 31 January, a written question was first tabled on 16 January and COVID-19 and the precautionary measures were first debated in the House on 23 January 2020, that it has been since January 2020 that he has been dealing with this pandemic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4A43:507F:A44:8CC5:2C2C:1898:250C (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me if this would be an oversimplification, but could we just say "Since early 2020,"? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Or could we even just begin with "Johnson has led the United Kingdom's ongoing..."? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@FollowTheTortoise: Yes, the Government were taking actions with regards to monitoring flights and other measures in January. I agree with you on the wording above (in your last statement) as the date does not need to be mentioned, as Johnson was taking action in January and would have been monitoring the situation before. Therefore, I agree, to change the wording to, "Johnson has led the United Kingdom's ongoing...".

Providing "led" can be loosely intepreted to include: "missed five COBRA meetings and remained on holiday during the early phases of"

Commonwealth Chair-in-Office

I've noticed that both this page and Theresa May's page have "Commonwealth Chair-in-Office" in their respective infoboxes. However, from what I can tell the office isn't really prominent and it's primary responsibility is seemingly just to host the CHOGM. I've found that world leaders host these sorts of conferences all the time, including Johnson, but these host positions aren't included in infoboxes (and, from what I can see, this one is only included because this is seemingly how the Commonwealth chooses to label its CHOGM host). Additionally, Johnson also holds the offices of First Lord of the Treasury, Minister for the Civil Service and Minister for the Union, but these aren't included in the infobox, presumably because WP:PLOT, so why should this one be included? Thus, I think that it should be removed. Does anybody else have any thoughts on this? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@FollowTheTortoise: Agreed I do not think the position warrants being in the infobox. As it is important to be consistent, although this office is in the infobox of some others who have held this office it is not in others. For example, see Julia Gillard, Olusegun Obasanjo and Kevin Rudd. So, although it is mentioned in many, it is also not mentioned in many. It is very inconsistent. Theresa May and Boris Johnson are also not known for this, so I see the value in removing this.DukeLondon (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Since it's now been over a week and I haven't recieved any other responses, I'm going to go ahead and remove "Commonwealth Chair-in-Office" from the infobox of this article and others. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done "Commonwealth Chair-in-Office" has now been removed from every infobox. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@FollowTheTortoise: Brillant. Thanks. DukeLondon (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Jennifer Arcuri section

I feel the Jennifer Arcuri section of this article should be updated to include the fact that she now claims they had a long-term affair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:2100:AB00:4016:1C7C:1C1E:7800 (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Added here, three days ago, by User:Mortee. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Stefanovic video

I earlier added a paragraph about this video which purports to demonstrate various occasions Johnson made false claims to Parliament. I cited The Independent and Corriere della Sera. Initially User:DeFacto removed a sentence claiming it wasn't supported by the source. Imo it was supported by the Independent article, although my editing was suboptimal. I rephrased it and along came User:StoneKommittii who deleted the entire paragraph as Wikipedia:PUFF. A further reversion led to DeFacto removing the entire paragraph (as opposed to just the sentence he removed earlier) citing Wikipedia:BRD. Personally, I can't see a problem with its inclusion - I've cited two reliable sources and unless you're of the opinion that documented examples of the Prime Minister seemingly misleading Parliament isn't notable, I see no problem from that angle either. As such, I think it should be mentioned in the article. Discuss away....... --DSQ (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Ummm, so 48 hours on and neither of the two editors who reverted my edit have had anything to say, both were pinged and both have edited since. It was hardly a "bold" edit in the first place, I've explained my rationale and BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. In the absence of any other objections, I'll assume I have silent consensus to re-add the info, anticipating that any future objections are brought here before further attempts to revert. Regards --DSQ (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

DeltaSnowQueen, there are still at least three problems with the inclusion. The first is whether adding it is possibly giving undue weight to it - it's a SPS which only seems to have been covered by one mainstream RS. Secondly it's the neutrality of the wording which is currently in a sensationalist and editorialised tabloid style, including the use of "scare quotes" to disguise opinion as fact. We should just lay it out in straightforward encyclopaedic prose. Also, we need to make it clear that it wasn't actually "fact-checked", it is just another view of the data by someone else, and possibly with a strong political motive. Thirdly, per WP:BLP, the other side of the story needs to be found and given - if it is a notable video, there will surely be other opinions on it. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Good Morning DeFacto and thanks for your comments. Clearly I don't agree that it's undue, although perhaps it could be made shorter and more succinct? If you think it's written in "tabloid style", and I don't think it is, then modify the wording used. Corriere della Sera have covered it and that's a reliable, unbiased source. It was covered in the London Economic, but I specifically didn't include that. Nor did I include the other international press coverage. It's been mentioned in The Guardian today following calls for an inquiry into Johnson's “consistent failure to be honest” in statements to MPs. It appears to me that the Independent have fact-checked Stefanovic's claims, as noted in the article and I'm simply quoting the language used. Noting that you're a long-established and experienced editor (which I am not), I'm sure you can make improvements, instead of the wholesale removal of content? --DSQ (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

DeltaSnowQueen, I don't think it was the Independent who fact-checked it, they're reporting that the author of it has allegedly "fact-checked" it, and they are only reporting the 8-month-old "news" because the video has now had 10M views. Also, I am always sceptical about criticism or "calls for inquiries", etc. from opposition parties or their members (which is what the Guardian are reporting), that's what they spend all their time doing or looking for opportunities to do. A story about the opposition supporting what the government were doing or saying would probably be more notable. The fact that the allegations made in the video weren't reported elsewhere in the UK press, who usually have a big appetite for this type of thing, or even in the press of other English-speaking countries, makes me feel very cautious indeed about its "dueness". -- DeFacto (talk). 09:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Ummm, I believe the Independent journalist is speaking in his own voice when he calls Johnson's claims "spurious" and "demonstrably false" and he has clearly checked both parties' assertions. Fact-checking. Anyway, we'll never agree, I am sure of that, so I'll leave it to you (and anyone else that wants to chime in) to edit it accordingly. To be frank, I really don't have the interest in Johnson, or his article, to spend any more time on it. Happy editing. --DSQ (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

A lot of it is fluff; the normal bent truths that politicians have been telling probably since politicians came into being: figures that would be true if inflation is ignored; saying that something has been restored when it's a watered down version; conveniently missing out years when there was another party in charge.... And Stefanovic describes himself as a "Labour supporter", so we're not dealing with a neutral commentator here. I've said before that more information on why Johnson's liked by so many and disliked by so many could have a place, but something more considered than this coverage of a video made by a political campaigner is needed. EddieHugh (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Dishonesty

Can this page be edited to capture the fact that Johnson is known to be dishonest - something that is well documented. Shunter100 (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we have the testimony of that paragon of virtue and integrity, Dominic Cummings, don't we? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

But here's what he says "on his first blog post since leaving his role", anyway:

• denied leaking text messages sent between Mr Johnson and Sir James.
• denied leaking details of the second coronavirus lockdown in England in November.
• claimed the prime minister once had a "possibly illegal" plan for donors to pay for renovations of his Downing Street flat.
• alleged Mr Johnson had considered trying to block an inquiry into the leak in case it involved a friend of his fiancee Carrie Symonds.

And Dom 2 chimes in with “vacuum of integrity” (which sounds quite fitting really). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

"paragon of virtue and integrity" made me laugh! What's been proved/admitted is already in the article. The rest is, for now, insinuation and allegation, as indicated above. EddieHugh (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Related AfD

A related article, Let the bodies pile high, has a AfD discussion here. Input is welcome. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

November Self-isolation

@Smartse: - I think this is worthy of inclusion, the fact he had gone into self-isolation for a second time, more so than the rumoured comment in the discussion above this. I would WP:BRD but I've just come out of a bruising edit war-incited experience on RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2) so I would prefer to use talk first. Spa-Franks (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Final sentence of intro

The intro concludes with this vague comment which I believe should be removed:

His actions that are viewed by supporters as pragmatic tend to be viewed by opponents as opportunistic.

Isn't that essentially a truism of pretty much all political discussion that could be in the intro for virtually any major politician's wikipedia page? Llewee (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It's the same for "Johnson is considered a divisive or controversial figure in UK politics". Name a prime minister/president who isn't divisive. EddieHugh (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment Well, secondary sources often describe Johnson as a particularly controversial politician in profiles [3] [4] [5] Arcahaeoindris (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree! There's a huge note in all caps stating that it shouldn't be removed but...the paragraph adds nothing to the article LizardLover36 (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @Llewee, that line quoted is effectively meaningless, doesn't add anything and isn't reflected in article text. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe rather than removing it, it could be rewritten to be more specific (i.e Bojo has been controversial for reason xyz)? LizardLover36 (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Prior to 24 April 2021 (UK time) the final paragraph of the lead section stated: "Supporters of Johnson have praised him as optimistic, humorous and entertaining, with an appeal stretching beyond traditional Conservative voters. Conversely, his critics have accused him of elitism, cronyism, and prejudice. His actions that are viewed by supporters as pragmatic tend to be viewed by opponents as opportunistic."

On 24 April 2021 an additional sentence was added at the start of that paragraph stating: Johnson is considered a divisive or controversial figure in UK politics.

I agree with EddieHugh that numerous Prime Ministers / Presidents can be considered "divisive". That is the nature of politics. It can often be divisive and people with (broadly) left or right-wing beliefs in politics can have strong views and disagreements. Whilst a number of secondary sources do indeed describe Boris Johnson as "controversial", this is a description as per WP:LABEL which should be used with caution on Wikipedia. The lead section must be written, as per WP:LEAD, with a neutral point of view. I'm not sure that describing him as "divisive" when many other Prime Ministers are also considered "divisive" is needed in the lead section or that it has an entirely neutral encyclopedic tone.

Is there a current consensus for this additional sentence in the lead section Johnson is considered a divisive or controversial figure in UK politics which was added on 24 April 2021? Personally I am opposed to it in the lead section and feel that a neutral encyclopedic tone in the lead is more important than the inclusion of this additional sentence. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally I'm not a huge fan of it and I'd rather see it goLizardLover36 (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I added the latter statement (Johnson is considered a divisive or controversial figure in UK politics) which is lifted directly from information already in the "Reception" section. I also added it as it gives further context to the next few statements, outlining the different views of supporters and opponents (hence "divisive"). Johnson is also often described as a controversial figure in profiles on secondary sources. I welcome further comments if this is thought of as not necessary in the lead. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Let the bodies pile high

@EddieHugh: I'm truly baffled how you could not consider this worthy of mention when given the in-depth coverage it has received e.g. from The Telegraph, BBC and ITV. Peston explains in detail about corroborating the quote from multiple sources who are independent of the original story, and through the other discussion in that article about the lockdown leak (checking it with multiple sources before publishing), demonstrates that he is an extremely reliable source. The Guardian also wrote in detail about the original report in the Daily Mail and why they consider it to be trustworthy. You cannot dismiss this as NOTNEWS or claim that this happens all of the time - some mention of it is completely due and a failure to include it would not be neutral. Note also that we also include his other infamous, alleged "fuck business" quote. SmartSE (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging on the talk page. WP:NOTEVERYTHING is perhaps more apposite than NOTNEWS: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." "we will get through this" on covid, "get Brexit done" on Brexit, "eat what they like" on food... the list of his remarks (confirmed and denied) that got extensive coverage but then faded away (and aren't mentioned in the article; maybe "get Brexit done" should be mentioned) is a long one. And that's typical for political leaders. Do you remember when Johnson got stuck on a zip wire? It got international news coverage and he wasn't even PM then. I don't think it's in the article and don't think it should be either. Why is mentioning this week's story about what he might have said due? We can wait and see if this story has any meaningful impact (eg, think: would this be something we'd include if creating this article from scratch ten years from now) and include it if it does. There's no hurry – a few weeks or months should reveal if this matters. EddieHugh (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

NOTEVERYTHING would exclude mentioning where Johnson visits day by day, not quotes which have attracted as much coverage as this. You have convieniently omitted the next sentence of NOTEVERYTHING too: Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight which was precisely the argument I made originally and which you haven't actually addressed, you've just diverted away from it with other examples. Please address why you think the sources I have linked to do not merit inclusion. SmartSE (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Because the examples I gave got similar coverage but aren't included. Why include this one? WP:PROPORTION: "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news". Is this latest story of significant "overall significance" here? No, or not yet. The article needs a huge reduction in pile-on examples and an increase in summary-style writing. EddieHugh (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree User:Smartse, it's one of his more nefarious proclamations, it appears to have been corroborated and should be included, I concur completely with your rationale. I also think wallpaper-gate should be included, especially now it's being investigated by the Electoral Commission, but no doubt that'll be dismissed as irrelevant or UNDUE too.--DSQ (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I would have to agree with EddieHugh. While it is getting a lot of publicity at the moment, we can wait and see if it is still remembered and talked about months or years from now. There is no need to include it yet. noq (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Smartse, at the moment it seems to be nothing more than hearsay from unnamed sources, originating in the Dily Mail. And with local elections due in the next week or so, it's hardly surprising that opposition parties have been trying to capitalise on it. I think we should wait and see if it sticks before adding it. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Also Sky, CNBC, The Spectator, Business Insider, Huff Po, The Australian, etc. etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree it deserves a passing mention given the number of reliable secondary sources that have covered it. Referring to it as an "allegation", which is all it currently is, does not violate WP:POV. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Revisited

@EddieHugh: See Sky News Reuters, The Guardian and The Times all reporting on this quote yesterday. This also invalidates your argument from a month ago that this was just a flash-in-the-pan. SmartSE (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, it entirely vindicates the argument presented by me and others – that we should wait and see if the story continues and has any lasting impact. It now has continued. I don't follow the latest sayings of Cummings, and the re-insertion of the information cited no sources from this week, so I was unaware of the latest updates. Even so, when an addition has been contested and there is no consensus for its inclusion, it's standard practice to seek consensus in the light of new information, not to reinsert it without discussion or before discussion. I still don't see value for the reader in reporting 'Johnson denied saying something', but I expect there to be sufficient support for it, given the renewed reporting that you link to above. Will there be any lasting impact? I repeat my 'wait and see' argument for that! EddieHugh (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

There is an entire section dedicated to this quote in the page for Premiership of Boris Johnson, which was the result of a consensus of editors to merge from a separate page that was created. Hence, a passing mention is probably also warranted on the page for Johnson himself. This argument for inclusion requiring lasting impact seems pretty irrelevant to me. When has this ever been Wikipedia policy? It is also clearly having a lasting impact. These allegations, and Johnson's handling of the pandemic, have remained a source of media attention and discussion in the political sphere, and from advocacy groups such as Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

It's been policy since whenever WP:PROPORTION was added. This story might look like it has minor significance now (one month from it breaking), but nobody knows what significance it will have in a year, two years, a decade.... EddieHugh (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Arcahaeoindris. This article should be a summary of Premiership of Boris Johnson and the AFD demonstrated a clear consensus that the quote should be included there. WP:PROPORTION says nothing about the "lasting impact" and a single, 28 word sentence is entirely in proportion to the coverage that this quote has received, as evidenced by the links here and in the Premiership of Boris Johnson article. Sure it would be nice if we had newly-written biographies that we could use to determine WEIGHT, but we don't and so have to judge for ourselves. It's clear from other sources like this from CNN on May 3rd and this from the i on May 16th which mention it in the context of recent events, that this quote has been considered significant ever since it emerged. It would be crazy for us to omit it. SmartSE (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not sure it looks like it has "minor significance" now either. This refers to the leader of a country talking about not acting to prevent deaths in the population. Its understandable that it has attracted a lot of attention. Lasting impact is not relevant as above, but even if it was the UK's COVID response is also undoubtedly going to be examined for years to come given the number of people who have died, and therefore so will the Premier's leadership and conduct. To say that this will just fade away or become unimportant makes no sense, and making no mention of it would be sanitizing the article. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Also known mononymously in the UK as Boris

@Tagishsimon: In regards to this revert, I fail to see how it's necessary to state that, especially in the lead. It's a waste of space in an already large lead section to just state he is also known by the forename of the article title. It's like adding "also known as Churchill" to the lead of Winston Churchill's article; it's obvious to anyone. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Abbyjjjj96, it's a rare phenomenon for an elected politician to be popularly known that way, so it is certainly notable, and, I think, definitely lead-worthy. It is not at all comparable with Churchill being known as "Churchill" as the use of surname only is the norm, and almost universal. It's more akin to Margaret Thatcher being known as "Maggie". I'd go further and not limit it to being in the United Kingdom only - it extends to the US and Europe, and probably further afield too. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I would argue he's more recognisable as Boris than Johnson merely due to the latter being a common name in the UK and the former much less so. I'm British, and if I went up to someone and started talking about a Maggie or even Margaret, I would definitely have to clarify that I meant Thatcher (and her article doesn't say "also known mononymously as Maggie" anyway so it's not an apt comparison). I feel he's much less recognisable just as Boris beyond the UK, depending on how common the name is in the country and how many other notable Boris' they have (Yelstin and Nemtsov come to mind). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Abbyjjjj96,

• The BBC is clear: "The first thing to note is that he is not actually Boris at all, despite the rare distinction in politics of being known universally by that single name".[6]
• The Irish Times is clear: "Here, Boris – for he is, like Charlie Haughey, principally known by his first name, scores".[7]
• The Critic is clear: "The fact that the prime minister is universally and affectionately referred to by his unusual second forename, ignoring the efforts of his enemies to brand him merely as 'Johnson', is another indication of his widespread popularity, despite the myriad mistakes made during the Covid-19 crisis. He is the only politician since his hero Churchill to be so fondly known".[8]
• Reuters is clear: "Few modern politicians display their admiration for ancient Greece as much as Britain’s next prime minister - full name Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, but commonly referred to as simply 'Boris'.[9]

I'll stop at that. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It's still unnecessary for an article named "Boris Johnson" to add "also known as Boris"; it's obvious. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe it's different in the UK, but it's not uncommon in the US to refer to politicians by only one name. We have Bernie, Kamala, Jeb, Mitt, Pete, Obama and Dubya off the top of my head. -- Calidum 19:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It is not notable whatsoever that someone is known by their name. See MOS:REDUNDANCY: "Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article." Noting that people call him by his name in the sentence right after his name is the definition of what not to do in the MOS. Please don't add this back unless there is consensus. —WildComet ^talk 22:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Per my edit summary: The whole point of encyclopedias is to explain this kind of thing; not to presume that the reader already knows. It's a good sentence conveying useful information. If you want to move it somewhere else in the lead or to elsewhere in the article, that'd be fine. Removing it altogether is not fine. Carefully noting WP:STATUSQUO and its various see alsos, I will revert to the status quo ante, until we reach a consensus here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Status quo is what was before the disputed addition, not what's actively being discussed.

Either way, like another editor said above, if someone references Bernie, Kamala, Jeb, Obama, etc. everyone knows who they're talking about. It's not something that special or unique and it's hardly a stretch to presume the user knows. He's not royalty and there isn't really a point to identify the name he uses like Elizabeth, Harry or whatever. —WildComet ^talk 01:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if it is worth noting in the lead. I mean his common name at least in formal situations is still Boris Johnson, and I do not think is common name is as mononym is on the same level as say Adele. Not opposed to putting the monoynm known as in the body somewhere providing we have the sourcing.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It's already in the body. The 'Public persona' section begins Often known simply as "Boris". Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Marriage to Carrie Symonds

According to press reports Boris Johnson married Carrie Symonds today (29 May 2021). There hasn't been any conformation from 10 Downing Street about this and several media outlets such as BBC News, LBC and Sky News are still saying "It has been reported" or "Reports Say". Given there is no official conformation I would lean on the cautious side of describing him a married and it may be worth putting a note saying that he is rumoured to be married or that he is reported to be married. What does everyone else think? C. 22468 Talk to me 22:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph puts it in its own voice, as do Sky News, CNN, and The Times. I think the quality of the sourcing is good enough to note it without the qualifier. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The "Personal life" first section was unclear in discussing this, so have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Johnson&diff=1025904554&oldid=1025904215 made it clearer. Remove "News reports said" if you think that's ok. . . dave souza, talk 08:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to note you cant actually have a marriage "in secret" as legally it has to be a announced to give time for legal objections. MilborneOne (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Coolguy22468, the BBC report that No. 10 have confirmed it,[10] so this is now moot. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes they have so it's as you say moot. C. 22468 Talk to me 11:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Their wording is "in a secretly-planned ceremony at Westminster Cathedral", rather than a "secret marriage". . . dave souza, talk 09:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

We seem to have some edit warring over "secret wedding" the BBC said "secretly-planned" and as explained you cant get married in secret you have to notify the registrar before it happens to allow legal challenge. The fact that nobody (the press) knew about it does make the the wedding "secret". The building was cleared to meet covid regulations which helped keep it private. MilborneOne (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The Telegraph [11] headline says "secret wedding ceremony". The ceremony was kept a secret from the public and not revealed until after it had occurred. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Abbyjjjj96, headlines are not reliable sources. No source says it was a secret ceremony. Please stop edit-warring over this. Elizium23 (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The CNN source says "secret wedding" in the article. I first reverted you because it was already being discussed here and no one had objected to my last comment. I just reverted you now right before seeing your comment here because your edit summary says "unsourced" but it is sourced. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Abbyjjjj96, it doesn't matter who's right; you're edit-warring. Elizium23 (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Your rationales for reverting are clearly incorrect though - CNN said a wedding carried out in secrecy Nowhere does it say that it was private. You can't claim that it is unsourced or fails verification when it patently does not. SmartSE (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Smartse, CNN did not report that in their own voice, they attributed another media outlet (whom I've never heard of). And so I think we should follow suit and use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV here, because several commenters here have rightfully pointed out that a "secret ceremony" would be completely invalid and illegal. Elizium23 (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: This is pretty tedious... have you read the CNN article? I quoted it and that was in their own words. It also quotes PA Media (aka Press Association) which is another reliable source calling it a "secret wedding". What commenters here opine about whether a "secret wedding" is possible in the UK is neither here nor there - we follow what reliable sources say, whether they are correct or not. SmartSE (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Just in case more sources are required, BBC report today The prime minister and his wife married in secret on Saturday. SmartSE (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Validity of previous marriages

It is stated:

"Since he was baptised Catholic but his previous weddings were not conferred by the Catholic Church, they are considered putatively invalid."

This implies any Catholic who marries in a non-Catholic service has an invalid marriage.

However, a Catholic can seek permission from their local Bishop (if they so wish) for their non-Catholic marriage to be recognised by the Catholic Church.

Isn't this in relation to validity in Catholic canon law, rather than English law? In English law, as far as I'm aware, all three marriages are valid. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

A Catholic cannot "can seek permission from their local Bishop (if they so wish) for their non-Catholic marriage to be recognised by the Catholic Church"; if they are otherwise free to marry, they can have what is sometimes called a 'convalidation', or is referred to as a blessing of the marriage, but in the eyes of the RCC it is this second ceremony that makes the marriage. They can, before the marriage, seek a 'dispensation from form': this would usually be in a case where the non-Catholic party is a more committed member of a non-Catholic Christian denomination: it is never given in favour of a civil registry wedding. Kevin McE (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. In relation to Canon Law. As a matter of protocol the Catholic Church would ensure the civil divorce was completed before allowing a Catholic to have their first canonical marriage. Alex Sylvian (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That isn't how Canon law works; the Catholic Church doesn't recognize civil marriages as binding in any canonical way. The article from The Daiily Telegraph doesn't really do a good job on this, but it would be interesting to see if any Catholic sources do a more in-depth investigation as to the particulars. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That is not correct. The Catholic church recognises civil marriage where it is not impeded by a previous marriage wherever it happens that is in keeping with the law of the land unless one (or both) of the parties is a Catholic. Indeed, if both parties are baptised (but not Catholic) it considers such a marriage to be sacramental, even if it is a totally secular ceremony and neither party has any Christian faith. Kevin McE (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Marriages between non-Catholics are recognised as valid by the Catholic Church. Mr Johnson benefits as a baptised Catholic who failed to seek permission for previous marriages. In practice, anyone (in different circumstances) seeking a canonical annulment would be have to seek a civil divorce first. Alex Sylvian (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

You're correct; thank you for that. I had meant to say that the Catholic church doesn't recognizes civil marriages involving Catholics as binding in any canonical way. You're correct on baptized non-Catholics. Non-baptized persons are considered to have a "natural marriage" when a man and a woman marry, as well.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

A Catholic is (for the marriage to be considered valid by the RCC) obliged to marry according to canonical form (essentially in front of a priest or deacon). For these purposes, a Catholic is identified as someone who "was baptised in the catholic Church or received into it and has not by a formal act defected from it" (Can. 1117). No matter how totally one has lost (if they ever had) faith is not considered to stop a person once baptised catholic from being considered one, not is any amount of anti-Catholic activity. The "formal act of defection" is an initiation into another church or religion, and Johnson's Anglican confirmation is precisely that.

So either someone has cast sufficient doubt on the fact of his Anglican confirmation; or both his previous wives were baptised Catholics (without defection); or there were other grounds for those marriages to be annulled (which would quite properly not be made a matter of public knowledge); or someone at Westminster Cathedral is playing fast and loose with canon law. Kevin McE (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Kevin McE, formal acts of defection have no canonical effect, ever since Omnium in mentem of 2009. Elizium23 (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

But both previous marriages took place between 1983 and 2009, so their validity is as per the law of their time. Kevin McE (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Kevin McE, I have never heard a canonist to remark that merely being confirmed in another ecclesial community constitutes an "act of formal defection". Elizium23 (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

When I was at seminary, it was the prime example given. It is the epitome of an act of initiation into another ecclesial community. Kevin McE (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Kevin McE, here is the PCLT's opinion on it. It would seem that a formal act needs to be received and recorded (in the baptismal register) by competent Catholic authority. Elizium23 (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

So this marriage is only permissible because of the incompetence of clergy who should have known of Johnson's Anglican confirmation (it was a matter of public record: it has been on Wikipedia since Jan 2015, and was in an autobiography published in 2011) failing to record it? His mother wouldn't have discussed such a matter with her parish priest, or he was too dopey to ensure that it was recorded? Whether his first marriage was a sacrament depends on paperwork???? That truly is a farcical situation, granting power to incompetence. Kevin McE (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Per The Pillar, a news source run by (among others) the former Editor-In-Chief of Catholic News Agency and a canon lawyer, Now, as regards Boris Johnson, Mr Johnson is a Catholic. His new wife is a Catholic. He previously attempted marriage, twice, but neither attempt observed canonical form, and thus Mr. Johnson did not contract marriage validly in either case. He was therefore free to marry. So was his new wife. In light of that, they married one another on Saturday. Such things happen in Catholic Churches around the world every day of the week. Insofar as I can tell, Mr. Johnson received no special treatment with regard to his being “allowed” to attempt marriage on Saturday. Instead, the Church regards the right to attempt marriage to be an ordinary human right, which it seem Mr. Johnson and his wife exercised on Saturday. Considering the linked source is written by a Canon Lawyer, this might serve to clarify confusion and it might be fruitful to cite. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Which is perfectly standard defect of form analysis. "Insofar as I can tell" shows that he knows no more about the specific case than we do, and is willing to make an assumption in favour of the Westminster tribunal. But it seems thoroughly irresponsible for him to call judgement on the matter without any reference to Johnson's public act of initiation into another church. Kevin McE (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

If we really wanted to nitpick, it'd be an initiation into another ecclesial community rather than into a Church, as far as I can tell. But yeah, it's a bit unusual to say the least, which is why it got so much attention from the Catholic press. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that, but in a wk talk page rather than a juridical community I was avoiding jargon. Kevin McE (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, since the Anglican Church is both Catholic and Reformed Mr Johnson has simply expressed a more Catholic sensibility. Canon Law is defined strictly but applied with pastoral (and civil) flexibility. However, mind reading (of PM or Canon Lawyer) is beyond Wikipedia. Alex Sylvian (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

He got married in a Roman Catholic Church, not an Anglican Church, so the discussion appears to be regarding Roman Catholic canon law. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

My comment above has been detached from its context by other contributors and is about whether Mr Johnson considers himself to be Catholic or has left the Church. Alex Sylvian (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

First Secretary

The Right Honourable David Cameron
Official portrait, 2010
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
In office 11 May 2010 – 13 July 2016
Monarch	Elizabeth II
Deputy	Nick Clegg (2010–2015)
First Secretary	William Hague (2010–2015) George Osborne (2015–2016)
Preceded by	Gordon Brown
Succeeded by	Theresa May

I'm not sure whether this needs a consensus to be done, but I want to add Dominic Raab, as First Secretary, to Boris Johnson's infobox under "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" and then all the other First Secretaries to all the other Prime Ministers's infoboxes (and, for example, in Tony Blair's infobox, John Prescott as "Deputy and First Secretary"). I've already participated in a discussion about this on this talk page, putting forward the argument as to why First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister are effectively equatable offices, but I don't think that a consensus was reached. If nobody has any problems with this, then I will begin work on it a week today. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I do have an issue when they're two different people: it would be inaccurate to state William Hague as a deputy to David Cameron in 2010-15 when the position of deputy PM was occupied by Nick Clegg. Spa-Franks (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I think that you misunderstand what I would want to do. In the infobox, I would use different lines for the "Deputy" and "First Secretary". I can't quite seem to be able to replicate it below right now, but if it would help, then I could try again later. Also, I don't think that it would necessarily be inaccurate to state that a Prime Minister had two (lower case "d") deputies at once: while Nick Clegg apparently usually stood in at PMQs, according to the Institute for Government, if David Cameron were to be incapacitated, it was expected that William Hague or George Osborne would stand in as Prime Minister, not Nick Clegg. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

So yes, just to clarify, this would require a new parameter, "First Secretary", being added to infobox officeholder, just as "Vice President" and "Deputy" already exist. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@FollowTheTortoise: we don’t need to create parameters, as can put: 1blankname = First Secretary and then 1namedata and add their 1st Sec. ☺️ 2A00:23C5:2C01:9501:249B:BD02:6E3A:DF60 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank you! I'll get to work on that as soon as I have a free moment. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It was previously in the infobox until GoodDay removed it [12] (and from related articles) so I have pinged the editor to perhaps discuss.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. They briefly commented on the other thread, but it would be really useful to hear what GoodDay has to say about it. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 07:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added what David Cameron's infobox might look like to the right. Let's give GoodDay a little while longer to respond, but if they don't then I'll go ahead with the edits. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I just don't see the reasoning in having it in the infobox. The place should be reserved for the post of deputy prime minister. When there's no DPM, then nothing should be used to replace absence of a DPM. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

A First Secretary of State is an equivalent role to Deputy PM, it should be in the infobox, @GoodDay:. 2A00:23C5:2C01:9501:17C:A974:D5C4:6631 (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @FollowTheTortoise and the IP, it would be useful to list First SoS in the infobox where they in fact function as the PM's deputy. I noticed that someone at Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom dug up a useful new (2020) book by the constitutional law expert Rodney Brazier, Choosing a Prime Minister: The Transfer of Power in Britain, which makes a number of relevant points. Brazier states that in many cases it is "formally" (and not just informally) "entirely clear who [is] the Prime Minister's ministerial deputy" (p. 80), and lists Raab as one such example. This is especially relevant in Johnson's case, as Brazier notes, since Raab did in fact deputise for him during Johnson's COVID-19 illness. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 14:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

That was me! It's a brilliant book. Thanks for replying everybody. They're both undoubtedly de facto deputy offices despite neither having de jure standing as such (like VPOTUS). The only real difference between the two is semantic and that the First Secretary office attracts a salary by itself while the DPM office doesn't. One final note, some governments have de facto deputies occupy other offices (think David Lidington or Stanley Baldwin), but unlike these offices they're so subjective that I don't think that they could be included in infoboxes. It seems that we have an almost unanimous result, but it might be wise to leave the discussion open for a little longer. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Disagree with you both. The place should be reserved for a deputy prime minister. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The point is that First Secretaries of State such as Raab or Osborne are in fact formal deputies to the Prime Minister per the RS I mentioned, so should be listed in the infobox. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 17:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for replying GoodDay, but it would be really useful if you could explain your argument further than simply asserting your view that that space in the infobox should be reserved for DPMs. Thanks! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

A deputy prime minister outranks a first secretary. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the infobox, particularly when there isn't a DPM by office (as with Johnson)? —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 18:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. But even if this is the case, I don't think that it precludes First Secretaries from being included. The threshold of seniority, if you like, can be below both DPMs and First Secretaries. And as has already been discussed, many governments have First Secretaries but not DPMs and so the comparison doesn't really work and not including First Secretaries in such circumstances means that readers miss out on finding out the PM's number two, which they wouldn't if the minister had been appointed to the virtually identical office of Deputy Prime Minister. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I must continue to disagree with you both. The space should be reserved for a deputy prime minister. BTW, I don't have control over these articles, so obviously if I'm in the minority on this, there's no way for me to prevent the inclusion of first secretaries. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course and thank you for saying so. I just wanted to make sure that we could hear from everyone and have every argument on the table before making edits that others will disagree with. As things are, there does appear to be a consensus in the direction of including First Secretaries, so if somebody else could just confirm this then I'll go ahead with the edits. Thanks for getting involved, everyone! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I think First Secetary should be listed when DPM is vacant, such as the case for Johnson (take for the case for when Johnson was hospitalised and Raab was basically in control).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind that restriction personally, similar to my qualification "where they in fact function as the PM's deputy", though it might lead to some oddness with David Cameron's box since you'd have to list Osborne but not Hague. My view is First SoS should be listed in the infobox where they were definitely deputies as per Brazier's list reproduced at the DPM article—since people will want to know who the PM's No. 2 is—and I'm ambivalent on them otherwise. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 20:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply: real life got in the way. It seems that we don't exactly have a consensus on what to do. As I see it, there are four suggestions:

1. Include all First Secretaries
2. Include all First Secretaries, except the ones who served alongside a different Deputy Prime Minister
3. Include only the First Secretaries on Brazier's list
4. Do not include any First Secretaries

I'd personally prefer 1. The second option would be exactly the same as the first, except William Hague wouldn't be included in David Cameron's infobox, which is a bit messy. The third option is (1) perhaps too subjective (it is only the view of one academic), (2) doesn't extend beyond Boris Johnson's premiership, which will end one day making this solution not very future-proof and (3) includes those who weren't appointed either Deputy Prime Minister or First Secretary, raising the question as to whether they should be included too and, if so, under what title. Though I do think that we have a consensus against the fourth option. Let me know which suggestions you'd all like. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I've slightly updated the infobox. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@FollowTheTortoise and Nizolan: I appreciate the comments surrounding this issue. But bare in mind this is the only talk page for Boris Johnson not Cameron, at least for Johnson it seems there is consensus building to add the First Secretary parameter here. If you want to launch a more wide-ranging discussion regarding all UK pms you would probably have to make an RfC or at least notify the affected pages I believe.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

How complicated! I'm afraid that I don't know how to set up an RfC. I was just thinking that it might be best to make the edits and then hold a RfC if there are any problems? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I've slightly reformatted the DC infobox again. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Honorific Suffix

The Right Honourable Boris Johnson MP

The Right Honourable Boris Johnson PC MP HonFRIBA

In the honours section of the article, it states that Johnson is a member of the Privy Council, and an honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects. Should PC and HonFRIBA not be listed as honorific suffixes in the infobox? 81.147.76.243 (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 09:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe PC and HonFRIBA should be included in the honorific suffix section of the infobox, like they are in the infobox on the bottom right.

I'm not sure what the situation with "HonFRIBA" is, but I'm pretty sure that we only use "PC" on Wikipedia if the person in question is "The Right Honourable" for another reason than being a privy councillor (for example, barons). So as Boris Johnson is "The Right Honourable" because he's a privy councillor, we don't use the postnominal "PC". This would change if he became Lord Johnson. I'm afraid that I can't find the authority for this, however. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yup, in the UK with the "PC", the "Right Honourable" is sufficient identification for Privy Counsellors; though peers use PC. —WildComet ^talk 05:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See above Run n Fly (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2021

Changed caption of Relationships: Johnson with his then-wife Carrie Symonds at the 2020 Commonwealth Day service.

The two was married secretly in May 2021 182.239.85.118 (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Elizium23 (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

2019 and Landslides

Was Johnson's victory in the 2019 election a landslide? Copied and pasted from the ThoughtCo article because I'm lazy: "One way to measure a landslide victory is by percentage points. Historically, many outlets have used the phrase "landslide" for victories in which a candidate beats their opponents by at least 15 percentage points in a popular vote count." Johnson beat out Corbyn by 11.5% - lower than this threshold. ElectionPolling's swingometer counts a landslide as a majority over 100, wheras Johnson got 80. I suggest we drop the section about 2019 being a landslide until we can get some sort of consensus either way.

CipherRephic (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

CipherRephic, a personal WP:OR interpretation based on the opinion of one writer on one American website does not trump the consensus amongst the contemporary reliable sources though. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Excellent question - I would never have thought of this! ElectionPolling seems like quite a convincing source, but I'm wary of ThoughtCo because it seems primarily about US presidential elections, which generally see fewer parties do well than UK general elections (thus creating a better opportunity for a bigger lead) and, while both use First Past the Post, the popular vote in US presidential elections seems to be latched more upon by the media and general populus than in UK general elections, which generally focus on seats.

Additionally, several reliable sources do describe Johnson's 2019 victory as a landslide, including ITV News, The Guardian, The New York Times and The Telegraph. I understand that this line of argument, of course, has holes in it, because, for instance, BBC News doesn't seem to, but four reliable sources is usually enough on other pages! I'll be interested to see what other users say about this! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I have found one example of BBC News describing Johnson's 2019 win as a landslide. Also, I forgot to mention this before, but I'd personally describe it as a landslide without a second thought (though I know that just one random person's opinion isn't very useful on Wikipedia!) I'd be interested to see if any reliable sources explicitly refuse to describe it as a landslide (and their reasoning!) FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

That's rather interesting - the BBC seems to be a bit iffy on what they call landslides as a page from 2005 seems to claim Thatcher's 1987 victory wasn't a landslide (or at least don't claim it was) but do say that her 1983 victory was, putting their line somewhere between 102 and 144. Seems like it differs from writer to writer, but I'm fairly satisfied with the consensus (personally I wouldn't call it a landslide but I'm no authoritative source!) If anyone knows how to flag this line of enquiry as finished I'd be quite grateful. Have a nice day! CipherRephic (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

That's strange from BBC News - I agree that it must be their massive writership. I agree that there appears to be a consensus - I don't think that we have to do anything more now. Thanks for starting this discussion and I hope that you have a nice day too! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2021

In Boris Johnson's biography on the right hand side of the page (On desktop), the subsection labelled 'children' has been vandalised to 'at least 69', instead of 'at least 6' which I believe is what the subsection is supposed to state (edit: I believe the correct term is 'infobox' not 'biography'. Josephb8910 (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Dealt with. Thanks. EddieHugh (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Grammar change (extra word/letter)

There is an extra "I" in this sentence (after "Brussels"):

After Stanley secured employment at the European Commission, he moved his family in April 1973 to Uccle, Brussels, where Johnson attended the European School, Brussels I and learnt to speak French. Jlavar1 (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: That's the name of the school. European School, Brussels I ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2021

Boris isn't the Most trustworthy Person out there he is Probably the Most hated prime minister by far Justinian527 (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source(s)? GooogleSearch for "most hated prime minister" returns a famous predecesor? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC) .... and she had better make-up

Number of children.

At present, in both the lede and the hatnote in the infobox, the text reads that 'Johnson has not disclosed how many children he has'.

I think, however, somewhere in the main body, or indeed the hatnote, we should mention that it is believed he has a seventh child which he has not commented on. See https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/boris-johnson-children-how-many-a9489766.html

This Forbes article presents a manner in which we could present this: See https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2020/04/29/boris-johnson-just-welcomed-a-son-but-how-many-total-children-he-has-remains-a-mystery/?sh=60674f350b74

"The Prime Minister also has a fifth child, with art consultant Helen Macintyre, from an affair while Johnson was London’s mayor; though Macintyre attempted to keep the details of her daughter’s paternity private, appeals court judges ruled in 2013 that the public had a right to know about the extramarital liaison that produced the child. Documents from those proceedings hint at allegations that Macintyre’s child with Johnson may be only one of two children Johnson had as a result of affairs."

We mention in the "personal life" section the case involving MacIntyre; however, we do not mention the possibility that he has another child from an extra-marital affair. I propose that, for clarity, someone perhaps considers rewriting/altering the sections re. the number of children Johnson has to add the possibility of him fathering another child. JLo-Watson (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

"At least 6"

I think that this article's perhaps infamous "At least 6" is unsourced. I can't find anything in references 3, 4 or 5 to suggest that Johnson has any more than six children. I'm going to change "At least 6" to "Number unconfirmed", to represent the fact that Johnson has not disclosed how many children he has. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I've changed "Number unconfirmed" to "Number undisclosed" to better represent the sources. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I've put it back to "At least 6" because consensus was reached, so you'll need consensus to change it. The fact that he has not disclosed how many children he has is already stated in the note. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh right, I didn't know about the consensus. I was concerned about it being unsourced, but if a consensus has been reached then I'll leave it alone. Thanks for your help and for letting me know! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

"Prorogued" vs. "suspended" vs. "discontinued"

Which word is better in the lead?

I strongly prefer "suspended", because "prorogued" is not common vocabulary and "discontinued" is less clear (it implies a permanent end). A glance at the Wiktionary entry for the word indicates that its usage here is political jargon, as it's now rarely used to mean "deferral to a later time; postponement". As I explained in my edit summary, the relevant policy is WP:TECHNICAL (i.e. writing for the WP:AUDIENCE). There's a specific section on the importance of leaving technical details out of the lead. There's also MOS guidance at MOS:JARGON. Most sources introduce "prorogation" as "suspension/suspended" to aid readers' understanding: to pick two examples, see the BBC and Brookings. I'd appreciate it if the two editors who oppose this change, JLo-Watson and DeFacto, could offer policy based reasons for choosing the more technical constitutional term. Responding to JLo-Watson's edit summary about the prorogation article title, please see WP:OTHERCONTENT. As it happens, I don't think there's anything wrong with having an article called "2019 British prorogation controversy" and a piped link from "suspended" here; I don't have issue with that title, it's accurate because the controversy was legal/constitutional. Also, that article's second sentence explains "the prorogation, or suspension, of Parliament was... Jr8825 • Talk 17:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825, I prefer the correct technical term - "prorogued" - as it is the least ambiguous and most accurate word for it. If there's a correct word for it then why compromise? And Wikitionary is not a reliable source, it can be changed by anyone, just like Wikipedia. You need to look at the OED for the definitive definition. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware Wiktionary is crowdsourced, I was trying to provide quick evidence for what I think is a relatively obvious fact – that prorogued is political jargon. The Cambridge definition says much the same. I think the willingness of multiple authoritative sources to call it "suspension" shows your concern about ambiguity/accuracy is not borne out by RS. Jr8825 • Talk 17:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825, it's not 'jargon', it's the correct technical term for the ending of a parliamentary session. It happens most years. It isn't a 'suspension' - that implies the session will re-start at some time, which it will not. The next time parliamentary business starts, it will be a brand new session. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

"Prorogued" Is the correct term and we should use it. We link to the article explaining what that means so anybody unfamiliar with the term only has to click once to find out. It is fine as it is. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've just pointed to a Cambridge dictionary definition which says it's a "specialized" "politics" term. "Special words and phrases that are used by particular groups of people, especially in their work" = jargon. Jargon doesn't mean something rarely happens, it's simply a term that's not understood by most people who don't work in that field (i.e. most people who don't work in parliament won't know what it means). If it's good enough for the Guardian, BBC, Brookings etc., and the term is confusing for the average reader, we should avoid it in the lead. At the risk of repeating myself, please read MOS:JARGON and the policies I've linked above. Jr8825 • Talk 18:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• @DeFacto: @DanielRigal: I presume your objections remain? If so, I'm minded to publicise this discussion at WP:POLUK/WP:POLITICS or open an RfC to receive additional input, unless other editors add their views. Jr8825 • Talk 23:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Retain prorogued. It's the accurate term. --AlisonW (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)