Talk:Boris Johnson/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Perugia & Learning the Violin

Can somebody expand this section through time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.108.45 (talk)

Critics of Johnson

At present, the article says that critics of Johnson have accused him of opportunism, cronyism, and prejudice. While this is all true, I feel like his relentless political lying has caused much more opprobrium and controversy. Peter Oborne wrote an entire book about it. Could we add "dishonesty?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:2100:AB00:41E0:20BC:36B:122 (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead changes

Hi all, I recently attempted to shape the lead summary of Boris' premiership into something resembling a chronological narrative while maintaining the current length. This was a bold edit and I'm not particularly surprised it has been largely (but not fully) reverted by EddieHugh. However, I believe the text I introduced was a major improvement on the previous version and made it far more useful to the reader, per WP:AUDIENCE, by turning it from an inaccessible list of contextless facts to a brief analytical summary of the notable features of tenure expanded upon in the article body. (A relevant essay on this WP:RF). Eddie Hugh removed two specific additions with the edit summary "cut opinion and length". Regarding length, the total number of additional words was 40, which I think is a very small increase in return for a significant increase in readability and imparted understanding for the reader; it's also a very minor change in relation MOS:LEADLENGTH, which recommends 3-4 paragraphs (the revised still falls comfortably within this range). Regarding the assertion that the additions are "opinion", I'd like to discuss both separately, explaining why I disagree with the revert rationale and why I think both changes are improvements: Jr8825 • Talk 18:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging on the talk page instead of reverting – a blessed relief compared with my recent experiences. My edit summary was actually "cut opinion and length (the lead is a summary; only the most important information should be here)". In an article on a current, very high-profile politician, we know that more information will have to be added (eg, he'll be an ex-PM one day). Therefore, we need to be very selective about what's in the lead. Exact dates of agreements ("17 October") aren't needed, and commentary (or "analytical summary") should be extremely selective, reserved for things that require contextual expansion. I agree that the flow of the lead could be improved, but that can be done with wording tweaks instead of additional sentences. Specific points are below. EddieHugh (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for shortening your edit summary. I take your point about the exact date being unnecessary. My thought process is that a date is helpful as it provides context for the surrounding sentences (i.e. negotiations were ongoing but not completed during the September prorogation, the snap election was called soon after Johnson had successfully reached a new agreement with the EU). While this might not be essential in itself, I think a date – perhaps a less precise one, such as "In October," – does add value to the paragraph by helping the reader understand how events related to each other. Jr8825 • Talk 23:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Prorogation

The reverted content is as follows:

−

Johnson [[Brexit negotiations in 2019|re-opened Brexit negotiations]] and in early September [[2019 British prorogation controversy|suspended Parliament]], a move widely seen as an attempt to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of the Government's Brexit plans; the [[Supreme Court of the United Kingdom|Supreme Court]] ruled the action unlawful later that month.

+

Johnson [[Brexit negotiations in 2019|re-opened Brexit negotiations]] and in early September [[2019 British prorogation controversy|suspended Parliament]]; the [[Supreme Court of the United Kingdom|Supreme Court]] ruled the action unlawful later that month.

This statement is supported a clear weight of sourcing – from across the political spectrum, as demonstrated by The Telegraph citation in the article body – and reflects what is said in both the body and in the article on the controversy itself in the briefest possible manner. I believe that the contextual knowledge provided (prorogation was widely described as a move designed to limit parliamentary scrutiny) is essential to understanding why it was considered controversial, ended up at the High Court and sparked a temporary political crisis which was a notable feature of his early premiership. Jr8825 • Talk 18:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

What's the relevance of commentary on how something was seen? The prorogation and SC decision seemed important at the time, but appear to have had a negligible impact. (You describe it as "a temporary political crisis" – that's right; very temporary, in fact. So why give it more attention than, say, his party's election win, where we offer no interpretation?) This is the article on Boris Johnson, not Brexit, or prorogation. Arguably, then, it's not worth mentioning at all in the lead, except that a PM's actions (actually the government's, so that could be rephrased for clarity) being ruled unlawful is unusual, so there's some merit to including "the Supreme Court ruled the action unlawful". EddieHugh (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The reason I think it needs more space is not because it's necessarily more important to Johnson than the election win, it's because I think it's simply harder to explain to the reader, and consequently needs more words dedicated to it (I think cutting the clause about the political purpose results in the controversy of events not being spelt out clearly). My view is that its importance is established by its unique/unprecedented context within British constitutional history, a point sources made at the time. However, as there's disagreement about this, I agree this is something that other editors should weigh in on before inclusion. Jr8825 • Talk 23:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

On second thoughts, perhaps saying "...and in early September controversially suspended Parliament;" does the job adequately? Jr8825 • Talk 23:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Meh: it being declared illegal is enough to show that it was controversial. And what about a political leader's political actions isn't controversial? We could accurately report "After agreeing a controversial revised Brexit withdrawal agreement with the EU but controversially failing to win parliamentary support for the agreement, Johnson controversially called a snap election". It doesn't add anything. EddieHugh (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The difference in my mind is that the snap election didn't spawn a "crisis". I respect your opinion though and I'm keen to hear whether other editors share your view. I don't object to the word being removed if it lacks consensus, I hope I made this clear with my edit summary. Jr8825 • Talk 17:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

NI Protocol

The reverted content is as follows:

−

On 17 October, a revised [[Brexit withdrawal agreement]] was agreed with the EU, the most significant change being the replacement of the [[Irish backstop]] with a new [[Northern Ireland Protocol]]. After failing to win parliamentary support for the revised agreement...

+

After agreeing a revised [[Brexit withdrawal agreement]] with the EU but failing to win parliamentary support for the agreement...

This is a relatively uncontroversial statement and the NI Protocol is an exceptionally notable piece of legislation: dropping the unpopular backstop was a key part of Johnson's public agenda; the new NI Protocol was widely discussed at the time (and still is) and has had major political and economic repercussions for the UK & NI. It helps readers unfamiliar with the topic to understand that the NI Protocol (frequently mentioned in media sources) is connected with the revised withdrawal agreement, and explains the central difference between Johnson and May's approaches to Brexit. The other change to the withdrawal agreement was the political agreement, which received far less attention, and is not particularly notable to Johnson's life in its entirety (the subject of this article). I don't particularly object to its addition, but my concern was brevity and summarising the most important elements of Johnson's tenure. Additionally, the additional wording provides better chronological flow. I look forward to hearing others' opinions on these proposed changes. Jr8825 • Talk 18:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Unless I've missed it somewhere in what is a mess of an article, the NI Protocol isn't mentioned. Yet the edit stated in Wikipedia's voice that this was "the most significant change". EddieHugh (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a fair point – but most importantly it's an indication that the new NI protocol is missing from the "Brexit policy" sub-section of "First Ministry (July–December 2019)", a major oversight as it really should be there. This looks like the result of the prose simply being outdated: the whole section is inadequate as it completely fails to mention the finalised agreement and concludes with Johnson's failure to call a snap election on 15 October, even though the election was called soon after because of the lack of parliamentary support for the agreement. I'm happy to go ahead and rewrite it with a more detailed summary of the revised withdrawal agreement, with additional sources, over the next few days. The NI Protocol was the most significant of the changes in the 2019 renegotiations, I've little doubt the weight of RS analysis/news reports supports this. Johnson's opposition to the backstop is also mentioned in two other separate sections, "2019 Conservative Party leadership election" (within "Return to Parliament") and "Immigration and the European Union" (within "Political positions and ideology"). These mentions are insufficient though, as they're discussing his position prior to becoming PM and prior to the outcome of the 2019 negotiations. Although they demonstrate the importance of Johnson's opposition to the backstop to his political positions, they're relatively less notable compared to what he actually achieved in the revised agreement. As I touched upon above, aside from possibly the pandemic response, the withdrawal agreement, enabled by the NI protocol (and subsequent "Irish Sea border"), is very likely the most notable policy he has implemented as PM so far, so I think it's a very strong candidate for inclusion in the lead (and should be, in my view). Jr8825 • Talk 23:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@EddieHugh: I've gathered a selection of quotes from RS to demonstrate both that 1) the 2019 NI Protocol has been an extremely important policy within Johnson's PMship and 2) the new NI Protocol is unanimously considered to be "the most significant change" coming from his 2019 renegotiation. The protocol is likely to be heavily discussed in the short term as the UK and EU argue over whether it should be replaced, so I also backdated some searches to show how consistently mentions have been over the last few years. Frankly the list of sourcing for the importance of Johnson's NI Protocol is inexhaustible, but this is what came near the top of my results:

Sourcing demonstrating importance of NI Protocol

BBC: The government said border checks on goods from Great Britain it signed up to in the 2019 Brexit divorce deal had proved unsustainable. ... The checks are included in the Northern Ireland Protocol, a section of the Brexit deal designed to avoid border checks on the island of Ireland. [1] CNBC: The U.K. has called for a complete overhaul of the Northern Ireland Protocol, a key tenet of the Brexit agreements that Prime Minister Boris Johnson agreed with the European Union in 2019. [2] France24: The Northern Ireland Protocol in the Brexit withdrawal deal replaced the prospect of a problematic frontier between the UK and the Republic of Ireland with the reality of a problematic frontier between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. ... the Irish Sea border disrupted food supplies and online shopping deliveries ... graffiti opposing the customs border emerged in unionist areas while authorities had to suspend customs checks at Northern Irish ports due to “menacing behaviour” from some loyalist militants. [3] Reuters (via France24): The Northern Ireland protocol was part of the Brexit settlement, backed by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, that finally sealed Britain's divorce from the EU four years after voters backed leaving in a referendum. [4] Institute for Government: On becoming prime minister in July 2019, Boris Johnson declared May’s backstop “anti-democratic and inconsistent with the sovereignty of the UK as a state”.[4] By October 2019, the prime minister had made good on his promise to renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement and ‘ditch’ the backstop. ... The new protocol made the Withdrawal Agreement acceptable to pro-Brexit Conservative MPs ... But it drew strong criticism from the Conservative Party’s then confidence-and-supply partner: the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). After the Conservative victory in the December 2019 general election, the UK government pressed on with ratifying the deal despite the newly re-established Northern Ireland assembly unanimously rejecting it. [5] Sources to show this has been continuously reported: The Independent (Jan 2021): The Road Haulage Association has warned that the supply chain is “within days of falling apart” because of new Brexit paperwork making it much more complicated and expensive to transport goods from the British mainland to Northern Ireland. But Mr Johnson played down the seriousness of the problem, caused by the introduction of a customs border down the Irish Sea under the terms of the EU withdrawal agreement which he signed. He said he was ready if necessary to invoke Article 16 of the agreement’s Northern Ireland Protocol, which gives the UK the right to take “appropriate safeguard measures” without consulting Brussels if the settlement causes “serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties”. [6] The Guardian (Jan 2021): The EU caused outrage on Friday evening when it invoked article 16 of the post-Brexit mechanism to stop the unimpeded flow of vaccines from the European bloc into the region. But it later abruptly reversed the move following condemnation from London, Belfast and Dublin. [7] FT (Sept 2020): The UK government was explicitly warned in January that Boris Johnson’s Brexit divorce deal would leave Brussels able to claim jurisdiction over “large amounts” of UK state aid policy after the end of the transition period ... Under the Northern Ireland protocol, which was agreed to enable Brexit without creating a hard border on the island of Ireland, the UK agreed the region would follow EU state aid law for any matter that affected goods trade. [8] The Irish Times (Sept 2020): ... threatens to derail the current EU-UK trade negotiations, which resume in London on Tuesday. Brexiters fear that the withdrawal agreement, which includes a protocol to avoid a return to a hard border in Northern Ireland, makes it impossible for the UK to be truly sovereign because it leaves London tethered to Brussels in key areas, including state aid and customs policy. [9] Bloomberg (Aug 2020): The Brexit Withdrawal Agreement signed by Johnson in late 2019 effectively creates a customs border in the Irish Sea, where goods crossing from the rest of the U.K. to Northern Ireland must comply with EU rules and pay any potential post-Brexit tariffs. The solution was designed to avoid creating a hard border on the island of Ireland. [10] Sky News (April 2020): But the government's command paper on how it plans to implement the Northern Ireland protocol paints a rather different picture of what has been agreed. There won't be checks on goods moving between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, but there will be "some new administrative processes" on products coming in the opposite direction. [11] The Guardian (Nov 2019): Boris Johnson has been accused of misleading the public about his own Brexit deal, after footage emerged of him telling exporters in Northern Ireland they will not need to fill in extra paperwork. ... Under Johnson’s revised withdrawal agreement, Northern Ireland will continue to follow the EU customs code, which includes customs declarations and other formalities. [12] FT(Dec 2019): Boris Johnson’s honesty was put under the spotlight on Friday after he insisted his Brexit deal would not require any checks on goods travelling within the UK across the Irish Sea, in spite of abundant evidence to the contrary. ... consequences for small traders of the Northern Ireland protocol agreed between the UK and EU as part of Mr Johnson’s withdrawal agreement. [13] BBC (Oct 2019): Most of the changes - to the deal agreed by Theresa May with EU in November 2018 - are to do with the status of the Irish border after Brexit. This issue has dominated talks for months. ... The new protocol replaces the controversial Irish backstop plan in Theresa May's deal. Much of the rest of that deal will remain. [14] Full Fact (Oct 2019): One of the key differences between the Withdrawal Agreement drawn up by this government and the EU, and the previous one signed off by Theresa May’s government, is the Northern Ireland protocol. It has been argued that the new withdrawal agreement will create a “border down the Irish Sea” with checks taking place on goods crossing into Northern Ireland from Great Britain. [15] Washington Post (Oct 2019): Much of Johnson’s deal remains the same as his predecessor’s, with language on the transition timing, the rights of E.U. nationals and the amount of money Britain has to pay the E.U. — the “divorce bill” — largely the same. Where it differs significantly, however, is how it handles Northern Ireland and the risk of a hard border with Ireland. [16] Politico (Oct 2019): The Political Declaration is not legally binding. But assuming nothing else has changed in the legally-binding Withdrawal Agreement other than the Northern Ireland Protocol (as appears to be the case)... [17] FP (Oct 2019): Very little actually distinguishes Johnson’s proposal from that of his predecessor, former Prime Minister Theresa May. The only substantial difference is the economic status of Northern Ireland post-Brexit and, specifically, how to manage the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland [18] Demonstration of JSTOR sourcing: ...agreement was reached in October 2019 on a revised Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. Johnson was certainly able to claim that the backstop had gone; with the revised Protocol,[17] the UK was no longer committed to a customs union with the EU if the future UK-EU relationship did not deliver on avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland. The reason was simple: in exchange for dropping the UK-wide Customs Union with the EU, Johnson had agreed that the Protocol's differentiated arrangements for Northern Ireland would be the default position at the end of transition. Westlake, M. (2020). Outside the EU: Options for Britain. Agenda Publishing. p. 168. ISBN 978-1-78821-312-7. JSTOR j.ctv16qjx9d.20. Although the Irish border was becoming an external EU boundary both sides wanted to ensure that the integration on the island of Ireland was disrupted as little as possible in the process. ... [under the protocol] the UK agreed to apply the rules of the EU as if Northern Ireland were still in the EU's customs union and single market for goods. And the EU agreed to treat Northern Ireland on these terms, and to depend on the UK authorities to enforce its rules. This constitutes an extraordinary economic arrangement. It is unprecedented in terms of international law. Hayward, Katy (2020). "Customs, consent and compromise: The significance of the Brexit Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland". Fortnight (479): 22–24. ISSN 0141-7762. JSTOR 26991402.

I will try to update the body shortly to integrate some of the relevant detail about Johnson's Brexit policy during his first ministry. Jr8825 • Talk 15:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

( Done) – although further work is needed on the Brexit section's final paragraph to tie it into the "2019 general election" section. Specifically, information is missing on Johnson's failure to win approval for the revised withdrawal agreement and the subsequent calling of the election (his Benn Act-mandated Brexit extension might also warrant a passing mention, although it's a balancing act with clarity/brevity). Also, the "loss of working majority" section might benefit from minor contextual additions. These changes should make the chronology of events clearer. I've got some half-baked ideas about how to implement them, but I'm unsure when I'll get round to it so if someone else wants to go ahead, please feel free.

So, with the backstop & NI Protocol now discussed in the appropriate place in the article body, and the above sourcing demonstrating their significance, do others have objections to the following change?

−

After agreeing a revised [[Brexit withdrawal agreement]] with the EU but failing to win parliamentary support for the agreement...

+

In October, a revised [[Brexit withdrawal agreement]] was agreed with the EU which replaced the [[Irish backstop]] with a new [[Northern Ireland Protocol]]. After failing to win parliamentary support for the agreement...

Thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 23:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

An abundance of sources – thank you. The only one that I see observing directly that this was pivotal is the one with "a key tenet", which isn't even "the key tenet". There were others at the time. But the rewording omits the original's "the most significant change", so I'm neutral on it. EddieHugh (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Ewen Fergusson

This article reports that "Government passed over 171 candidates to pick Bullingdon Club ‘chum’ of Boris Johnson for sleaze watchdog role". It's also reported here and here and here, etc. etc. Is this notable? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Where would it go? By itself in exclusion, probably not. There isn't a subsection in the second ministry where it would slot in, nor is there an obvious section that could be created for it – and there's WP:RECENTISM to contend with if it's added as a chronological event within his premiership (it's questionable how notable it will be in the scheme of his PMship, more likely it's just a minor scandal which will disappear in the next news cycle as people forget about it). While that's a bit of a sad reflection of the standards of public office, we're just here to follow the sources. Where I could envisage it fitting in is the reception section, as part of a sourced paragraph there detailing how allegations of "sleaze"/"cronyism"/"dishonesty" have been a consistent, notable aspect of critical coverage of his premiership/life (cronyism is already mentioned in the lead, suggesting there's due weight for this, there's also sources such as this [19]). Jr8825 • Talk 15:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I should have guessed, really. We now already have Ben Elliot and his cash-for-access club, which has now even touched our future King?! [20]. So Mr Bullingdon Fergusson will soon be forgotten I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Over the last month or two, we've witnessed two things: Boris Johnson (in quite a quiet, near-secretive manner at that) withdrawing the remainder of the UK military from Afghanistan ahead of the US withdrawal - and trying to back it up with the statements we now know to be false that I will come back to at the end - and the Taliban sweeping across Afghanistan in a month.

Afghanistan, as in the US, is also significant in the UK. We've been nearly as involved as they are, and although we haven't been quite as involved over the last several years as maybe the US has, Boris Johnson has been a major part of the withdrawal - and its effects - and let's be honest, it's blown up in his face nearly as badly as it blew up in President Biden's. Let me now use two of the quotes - "There is no military path to victory for the Taliban" (Boris Johnson, July), "I do not think the Taliban are capable of victory by military means" (Boris Johnson, also July). It's also important, if this section is approved, to include the criticism - particularly from the Leader of the Opposition's speech to the Commons on Wednesday 17th August, whereby he criticised PM Johnson for being "wrong and complacent", and where in particular his rather (in my opinion) vague and meagre plans for refugee housing - including 5,000 refugees that he'll send back at an undetermined point - were attacked, as well as where he stated the military's lives were "not in vain". It's very important to listen to both sides - especially when PM Johnson's side is clearly seen as wrong, including by his own MPs who were in agreement with most of his speech.

There's also been a very important development with Dominic Raab and Boris Johnson alike - their holidays at really, really, really pivotal times. Dominic Raab is still on holiday in Cyprus as I write this, unless I'm mistaken, and Boris Johnson went on holiday the day Kabul fell (and returned the following day). It doesn't need saying that this faced intense scrutiny and criticism, including the term dereliction of duty from military leaders.

This has been a major moment in Boris Johnson's premiership, and should be included in his article of his premiership. (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Forvana, mischief-making by the opposition is not notable as that is predictable and not necessarily anything more then feigned indignation, so to add it would be to give it undue weight. However, if they were to support what the government were doing, that might well have due enough weight for inclusion.

That doesn't mean that robustly sourced comments by qualified expert commentators on this matter should be excluded though. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2021

It has been proven beyond repute by Peter Stefanovic that Borris Johnson has lied to parliament and the British public repeatedly.

A short video exposing Borris Johnson's lies can be viewed on Stefanovics Twitter or YouTube pages.

Source: https://twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/1434792759911751681?s=19 86.145.116.214 (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please discuss if the source is reliable for inclusion - FlightTime (open channel) 03:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2021

Remove death and cause of death, as Boris Johnson is still alive. 82.30.230.50 (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Vandalism reverted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

One Nation Tory

Why has the fact Boris Johnson is a One Nation Conserstive been removed from this topic's opening text? Is there a valid reason behind this? FlowD (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It's still there in the lead. It says: He has been described as adhering to the ideology of one-nation and national conservatism. Does that help? No Great Shaker (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Aha; thank you. Yes that does help. I didn't see this. All good!

FlowD (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, it got caught up in edits, so it was in, then out, and possibly being shaken all about. But it's now back where it has been for a long time. EddieHugh (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

BoJo Redirect Hatnote

Is it necessary to have the Redirect Hatnote from BoJo? If you type "Bojo" you will go to Bojo (disambiguation). You only get to Boris Johnson if you type in "BoJo". None of the other things on the Bojo (disambig) use the capital J, therefore I feel like it's not probable someone would accidentally end up on this page by typing in "BoJo". snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 16:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It should be removed, absolutely. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll make the change now then. It seems like there hasn't been any warring over it previously, so it should be good to go. If any discussion happens over restoration, feel free to ping and I'd discuss more. Cheers! snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 18:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Demands for apology (racism and Islamophobia)

For anyone joining this discussion, which began on a user talk page and was moved to here, the issue is whether the following paragraph should be appended to the section headed "Allegations of racism and Islamophobia" as a continuation of its subject-matter:

On 28 September 2021, Labour's deputy leader Angela Rayner posted reports confirming that Johnson has refused to apologise for racist comments about African people; Islamophobic remarks about Muslim women; a homophobic "tank-topped bum boys" jibe; and branding the children of single mothers as "ignorant and illegitimate". She insisted that Johnson should apologise for his racist, homophobic and sexist comments.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58708009 |last=Scott |first=Jennifer |title=Labour conference: Angela Rayner renews attack on Johnson in scum row |date=28 September 2021 |work=BBC News |publisher=BBC |location=London |access-date=29 September 2021}}</ref>

This was added by myself, using the BBC source, on 1 October and, same day, was reverted by DeFacto whose edit summary includes:

this characterisation is unacceptable in a BLP as it implies the opinionated allegations are assertions of fact.

The discussion began on 1 October with the mail immediately below the following move notice. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

You [DeFacto] say that this characterisation is unacceptable in a BLP as it implies the opinionated allegations are assertions of fact. The information is sourced to the BBC and I could add a myriad of other sources to that. In a BLP, a reliable source is required, of course, and I have provided one. You say opinionated allegations about the fact that Johnson has refused to apologise. Not assertions of fact but actual facts – he has refused to apologise. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, how does "characterisation" come into it. Johnson has written these comments. No one is satirising him. He has written extremely objectional comments in published material and, when challenged, has refused to apologise. As the reliable source, one of many, says. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

And to express this in WP terms, you are in breach of WP:PRESERVE because you are removing appropriate content that is reliably sourced. The content is entirely relevant to a section entitled "Allegations of racism and Islamophobia" – it follows on from everything else in that section. Allegations have been made, based on stuff Johnson has actually written, and Mrs Rayner has publicised the fact that Johnson has refused to apologise for his comments. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

No Great Shaker, you added it, it was challenged twice, now it's time to discuss. The BBC say: "she repeated her accusations.... Has he accepted that he has said anything racist , Islamophobic, homophobic, or whatever? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You are being pedantic. The BBC may have said "accusations" but the fact is that Johnson WROTE this crap and has refused to apologise. The point is not that Angela has accused him but that she has posted reports which confirm Johnson has refused to apologise for writing homophobic, Islamophobic, racist and sexist smut that has offended many people. Have you not read the rest of the "Allegations of racism and Islamophobia" section and can you not see that Angela's "accusations" and her demand for an apology are a continuation of the section's content? I despair. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker, no, all I am doing is applying Wiki's NPOV and verifiability policies, particularly wrt BLPs. Regardless of your personal opinion, we cannot imply in Wiki's voice that he needs to apologise because in someone else's opinion he has done something that in their opinion he should apologise for. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

No one is implying anything. I have added relevant content that is reliably sourced and what you say there is complete and utter rubbish. He has been challenged numerous times about comments like this as the section already recounts. It is not just Angela's opinion – she has posted reports which confirm Johnson's refusal to apologise and that is reliably sourced fact, not someone's "opinion". Are you by any chance a supporter of Johnson because if you are then the content of the article is "regardless of YOUR personal opinion"? No Great Shaker (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker, saying he hasn't apologised implies he should have - and that is subjective opinion which needs to be appropriately attributed as such, and not asserted as fact. I could post reports that you had failed to apologise for something - would that mean it's a fact that you should have apologised and had refused to? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:PRESERVE, if you have a problem with the wording of the paragraph (in that you think it implies something "in Wiki's voice"), why not be proactive and suggest an improved wording instead of adopting a WP:IDHT stance? No Great Shaker (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker, I don't think it's worthy of inclusion here - it belongs in the accusers article and not in the accussee's. And with the accuser being a member of the opposition shadow cabinet it would probably be giving it undue weight anyway, as that is what they do every day. OTOH, if she was vociferously supporting his right to free speech that might be notable enough to include. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

No, what you saying there is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Unacceptable. Furthermore, criticism of a politician by an opponent is not WP:UNDUE – nearly all political biographies contain critical comments by opponents. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What on Earth are you on about? Saying he hasn't apologised implies he should have??? No one is implying anything. Read the paragraph again. Angela posted reports (on Twitter, as it happens, but that doesn't matter because the BBC reproduced it) confirming that Johnson has refused to apologise. That is FACT. Angela then insisted that he should apologise and even though that is her opinion (and that of all decent people everywhere), the BBC reported it as such and so it is verified information that is relevant to the content of this section. We are quite in order to record an opinion in an article if it is verified and relevant to the subject. Btw, you don't need to ping me each time. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is an apology required? Feigned, or even real, indignation at a comment or remark does not therefore mean that there was anything wrong with that remark. And unless we can assert, as an incontrovertible fact, that an apology was required, then we should not be giving any weight to a demand for one, especially from a political opponent. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The paragraph says why an apology is required. Angela "insisted that Johnson should apologise for his racist, homophobic and sexist comments". These are the comments which Johnson has refused to apologise for, as confirmed by the BBC. They are the same comments which have already been detailed in the allegations section. To assert that feigned, or even real, indignation at a comment or remark does not therefore mean that there was anything wrong with that remark is complete and utter BS, as well as poor English ("does not therefore mean"). The verified facts are that Johnson made those comments in published articles; he has been asked to apologise; and he has refused to apologise. You also say that we must assert if an apology was required but we should not mention a demand for one when the demand is itself the assertion. You need to edit your comments before submitting them because none of that last message makes any sense. As for Angela being his political opponent, so what? All political biographies include criticisms made by political opponents. That's par for the course. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments, demands for apologies, apologies, declining to apologise – all of these are covered in the article already, and not just in the 'Allegations of racism and Islamophobia' section. There's a high level of criticism in the article already and (as I've said before), almost nothing on why he's popular with a lot of voters. Reporting another person repeating the same thing wouldn't help this balance or add anything. The whole Rayner episode looks like name-calling for the sake of political point-scoring. If it has a lasting impact on Johnson, it could be worth including; if not, then follow WP:NOTNEWS and omit it. EddieHugh (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Extraneous discussion re possibility of no consensus

Unless anyone else wishes to contribute to this discussion/argument within the next 24 hours, I will terminate it as a no consensus and replace the paragraph at issue, although I will consider the import and wording to see if I can improve it. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC) The consensus required is one to add it, so no consensus means leave it out. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC) No, it does not. Stop inventing things. No consensus means that it stays – as at AFD, CFD, etc. If you want sourced content removed, you have to justify it and since you have by no means achieved that, you need a consensus to support your argument. Without that, and given that the content is both relevant and reliably sourced, it goes back in. You have every right to remove unsourced content, of course. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Per WP:NOCON: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it.". You are trying to add something contentious about a living person. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this should be included. Maybe trim the content as a compromise? The comments don't need to be repeated as they're already covered in that section. Rayner calling out Johnson for this is just as notable as Rayner's 'scum' comments, which are covered in her own article. –Bangalamania (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment: The "Allegations of racism and Islamophobia" section does already contain the content of Labour MP Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi calling on Johnson to apologise for some of the previous comments and states that Johnson declined to apologise. A concern I'd have would be if this section becomes long and bulky with different quotes from various Labour MPs criticising Johnson it may start to appear unduly negative. I don't think the comments by Johnson need to be repeated in the section, but I wouldn't object to including a fairly brief sentence from Angela Rayner stating, in her view, that Johnson should apologise. The article, as a whole, already contains much criticism of Johnson and his character by various people such as Max Hastings and Peter Oborne. The article should always strive for a neutral tone. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Having read the above, I’m confident that the paragraph should remain as originally included. It is appropriately sourced and cited. It is appropriately worded. It is given appropriate context by the other content in the section. Chausettes (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

First, thanks to each of Eddie, Bangalamania, Kind Tennis Fan and Chausettes for your comments which are all to the point, rational and very helpful. I'd be happy to take out any mention of the subjects which are already included in the section but there is one raised by Angela Rayner which is not there. This is Johnson branding the children of single mothers (Angela herself was formerly a single mum) as "ill-raised, ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate". The BBC altered it to "ignorant and illegitimate". To settle this finally, I suggest appending to the final paragraph:

On 28 September 2021, Labour's deputy leader Angela Rayner posted a comment by Johnson which branded the children of single mothers as "ignorant and illegitimate". Having been a single mother herself, Mrs Rayner insisted that Johnson should publicly apologise. (source: BBC News, as before)

What do you think? No Great Shaker (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this the same old 1995 snippet dredged up again, the one that, in 2019, Johnson dismissed as having had its context stripped from it as part of a Labour smear campaign before the 2019 election? I suppose if it is added to the article, NPOV would require that the original context be described and Johnson's dismissal of it last time Labour used it be added too. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for the original context of the "snippet" and Johnson's dismissal of it? By dismissal, don't you mean refusal to apologise? You also need a reliable source for your alleged smear campaign. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Does this not constitute WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE? Why are Rayner's remarks especially worth noting here in his biography?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

My initial impression is similar to Spy-cicle's. I'm don't think it's obvious why Rayner's comments are notable to Johnson's life as a whole, I don't think a statement by an opposition figure is a particularly good source for a politician's biography (its inclusion could appear a partisan editorial decision - I'm sure Tory MPs have made comments defending Johnson), and I'm also unconvinced that a specific demand for an apology rises above the NOTNEWS cycle. To clarify, I'm not commenting on the suitability of adding similar criticism of Johnson, I'd be open to covering such criticism if it came from stronger, more authoritative sources (expert/analyst/journalist voices talking about Johnson directly, rather than reporting comments made by a politician). Also, if this criticism were eventually included, the section title would probably have to broadened, as it isn't racist/Islamophobic, more sexist/classist. Jr8825 • Talk 18:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

H'mmm! Actually, I accept the arguments put forward by Spy-cicle and Jr8825|. I have to agree that it is WP:RECENTISM and I take Jr's point that criticisms by a political rival, no matter that they are pertinent and right, don't carry the same weight as those by a recognised political commentator. While I still reject the utter nonsense that has been spouted by DeFacto, I have decided to let this matter rest and leave the paragraph out of the article. Thank you to everyone else who has contributed. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Confirmed number of children

According to Sky News he has confirmed in an interview with NBC that he has six children: [21] 84.92.90.18 (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

There are currently four different sources, supporting that fact, in the infobox alone. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Should it not remain "At least 6"? The logic behind this previously being that 6 were confirmed, and there was speculation of more due to other affairs. He has now confirmed 6, but the speculation of more remains valid. Cjeam (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

From what I can see, reliable sources see this as confirmation of the number of children he has, so we should go with that Jopal22 (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

So the interviewer's question was about "six" not "only six". Johnson was hardly like to respond with "as far as I know" or "at least", was he? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I also wonder if it might be better to still say "At least 6". There are numerous sources in the article of him being accused of lying. Just because he says something doesn't mean it should be accepted as fact. At the very least, the speculation should be mentioned in an infobox note because his previous refusal to disclose a number caused a lot of press. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Answering in the affirmative to the question "do you have six children" is not a direct lie if you, in fact, have more than six? You might even call it a "politician's answer". This all assumes, of course, that he actually knows. Maybe there are some paternity tests that have never been done. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I feel on reflection like it may be being a bit pedantic to retain "At least". 6 were speculated, he's confirmed 6, what level of validity is required for sources on how many children someone has? Usually we accept what they say, while for many people who face allegations of impropriety "at least" would be a reasonable qualifier, but it is rarely used. Unless there were serious suggestions of another child that were relevant (as it was around the time of the court lifting the injunction), it seems more practical to just say 6. Cjeam (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Plantsurfer: Regarding the disagreement over the use of conceived/fathered here. Conceive doesn't always mean to get pregnant, it can mean to "create (an embryo) by fertilizing an egg". The Independent source uses "conception" (which is a direct quote from the court case) while the Guardian source uses "conceived". "Fathered" means the pregnancy resulted in a child being born. It's possible he had an extramarital affair result in a pregnancy without a child being born. Saying he "fathered" two children from affairs is not supported by the sources. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of that, conceptions that failed to come to term are not notable, and obsessing about how many there were looks like prurient interest. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a red-top. Plantsurfer 10:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

From Wilfred Lawrie Nicholas Johnson to Lara Lettice. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Huh, just realised that Lara Johnson-Wheeler has her own article. –Bangalamania (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess we're going to keep the note by the "6" in the infobox; I removed "confirmed" in case it gets confused with the Catholic ceremony and changed the note to read After years of avoiding the subject, in September 2021, Johnson said that he had 6 children, but some have reported that he may have more than this. See #Relationships for more information. Not the best wording I know, but I think it's best to keep the note short and sweet. –Bangalamania (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Clearcut case of us relying on an unreliable primary source, I fear. Yes, many reliable sources have reported his belated acknowledgement of one of his children, but it's not an accurate summary of them to characterise them as saying he has precisely six in total, in Guardianvoice, Indyvoice, WaPoVoice. Indeed, the latter somewhat smirkingly points to this article, so it's rather ironic it's now decided to prematurely de-fuzzy itself in response to this partial acknowledgement. To be clear, one of the sources mentioned above, the Independent says: "It is believed that the prime minister has seven children, however, he has not officially confirmed the exact number." This is already cited in the article. Failure on our part to verify the article contents against our own sources. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Shambolic speeches a calculated act

I made an addition to the article which I think is very revealing about Johnson's careful cultivation of his public image; it was immediately reverted with comment rvt addition of detail from one commentary piece in The Spectator (due weight? unclear significance for bio), and without clear quote marks... I think the incident shows a lot about Johnson's techniques and should be included (possibly worded differently). If there is agreement I'd suggest it be reinstated in some form.

Jeremy Vine described a speech Johnson made to a business audience before he was Mayor of London; it was shambolic, chaotic and with forgotten punchlines to jokes, but the audience loved it. But any impression of carelessness and true disorganisation was tempered when Vine was at a speech to a different audience two years later: it was identical, misfired joke by joke, the identical talking points ("SHEEP") writ large on a visible sheet of paper.

Pol098 (talk) 15:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pol098: The problem is that it looks like original thought/interpretation, based on an opinion piece, and presents it as fact without properly attributing it. Perhaps it could be better composed to make it clearer that it's all Jeremy Vine's opinion (we shouldn't be be writing "it was shambolic, chaotic" without direct quote marks, per WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:WTW). The broader problem is whether the source warrants inclusion at all – its style ("My Boris Johnson story") is concerning; op-eds are primary sources (WP:NOROPED) and there's WP:RSEDITORIAL to consider. There are better sources out there, making explicit statements about Johnson's image rather than inferences about motive such as the ones Vine is making on the basis of witnessing two speeches (e.g. proper news pieces have covered this, there are more authoritative commentators than Vine, such as the London bureau chief of ARD, and I expect there will also be expert sources/academics too). Jr8825 • Talk 16:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825: Thanks for detailed comment. I think the incident I referred to is quite different from those you cite, but agree that my wording wasn't great.

Specifically, there are many sources about Johnson lying, making things up on the hoof, etc., but the incident of the exactly-repeated scripted pseudoshambles shows something different which isn't otherwise revealed in the article I think, a technique rather than an attitude; a knowledge of and deliberate cultivation of shambolism as a cuddly audience-pleasing (and potentially vote-winning) attribute. My wording was rather based on a comment I'd made elsewhere, and isn't encyclopaedic enough. Maybe I'll have another, more appropriate, stab at it in due course. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

(ec)Agree that it shouldn't directly -- much less in our editorial voice -- state Vine's conclusions that the speech was shambolic, etc, much less that it was deliberately so. I think the source might be usable for reportage of the bare facts of those speeches, briefly and explicitly as being as witnessed by Vine (same delivery, same AWOL punchlines, same cues), in the context of other sources on his "image", and allow readers to draw their own conclusions if they decide to read the remainder of the piece. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

How does this look?

Jeremy Vine described a speech Johnson made to a business audience for an awards ceremony before he was Mayor of London; he said that Johnson arrived just moments before the speech was to start, then seemed not to know what the topic was, told anecdotes and jokes for which he had forgotten the punchlines, did not address the topic at all - but the audience loved the chaos of it. Eighteen months later Vine was at a similar occasion where Johnson was also the speaker. Vine said that he made exactly the same speech—late arrival, off-topic, the identical same rambling anecdotes and misfired jokes—and received the same laughter and applause. Vine commented "now I understand everything".

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pol098: I have two specific comments regarding your wording. Firstly, "now I understand everything" isn't very helpful and sounds leading, which isn't suitable for the factual tone of an encyclopedia. Secondly, "the audience loved the chaos of it" is again his own interpretation/analysis, I think that would need to be clearer. That said, I'm still against giving this source the amount of space you're talking about – particularly after reading it fully, as it's written as soft news rather than serious journalism, which is a bit of a red flag per WP:RSEDITORIAL, as I mentioned above. If it's to be included, I think it should be kept to a much shorter, clearer sentence summarising its argument, something along the lines of: "Jeremy Vine observed that Johnson gave multiple speeches with the same careless, disorganised delivery style, and [interpreted this as]/suggested/argued this could be a deliberate act to endear himself to his audience". If you think that something like that would be a valuable addition, go ahead – I'm ambivalent and won't oppose it, although my reservations about the quality of the source remain. Jr8825 • Talk 22:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Holiday in Spanish villa

Johnson is "reportedly staying in a £25,000-a-week villa that is owned by Tory peer Zac Goldsmith": [22], who was made a peer by Johnson on 7 January 2020. Is this in any way notable or just tabloid tittle-tattle? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's "tabloid tittle-tattle", it's factual, reported by good sources, and they clearly consider it controversial/a bad look. See also The Guardian's article. Goldsmith is reported as being a personal friend of the Johnsons, so there's that element to consider. The decision here is, once again, determining whether there's due weight to include this and whether it has lasting significance to Johnson. As with Fergusson, it's not really suitable as a stand-alone event within the chronological section on his premiership, but quite possibly suitable for illustrative purposes if tied to a broader theme, maybe in the personal life section?). Alternatively, there may well be scope for a paragraph on allegations of cronyism in the 'reception 'section, seeing as it's an accusation that has been extensively reported on. I don't think the source's suitability it's clear-cut either way, but more dependent on how/where it's used – so I'm open to other's thoughts. Jr8825 • Talk 12:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

"Thanks" for reminding me. I had all but forgotten about Mr Bullingdon Fergusson. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Fuel shortage

Fuel shortage is not caused by panic buying, but there is a lack of HGV drivers. --ZemanZorg (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@ZemanZorg: I agree. BTW, the "panic buying" descriptor is currently being discussed at Talk:2021 United Kingdom fuel panic buying article title, too. —Bangalamania (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not even a very accurate summary of the source given. "Johnson's comments were his first since the fuel supply problems began at the end of last week when oil companies reported difficulty transporting petrol and diesel from refineries to filling stations." It's fairly clear that there's a vicious cycle here that the panic-buying makes worse, but it's not started by that alone. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Boris Johnson hosts virtual G7 meeting (2).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2021

Boris Johnson
Leader of the Conservative Party
Incumbent
Assumed office 23 July 2019
Chairman	James Cleverly Amanda Milling Oliver Dowden
Preceded by	Theresa May

Can Chairmen of the Conservative Party who have served under Johnson be listed in his infobox, as they are with most Leaders of the Labour Party, and many Leaders of the Conservatives? 81.157.224.127 (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Exclusion of Ben Elliot

Is there any reason for the exclusion of Conservative co-chairman Ben Elliot in the infobox under 'Chairman'? Elliot has served in his role since the beginning of Johnson's premiership. Andysmith248 (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

"Reacted slowly" to COVID in lead

Hello. @DeFacto: @No Great Shaker: @JLo-Watson: and others. There seems to be some editing conflicts about what should be said about Johnson's COVID approach in the lead. The section on COVID in this article does touch upon this topic and even uses the term "slow response", so would argue something touching on this could go in the lead too. I think "reacted slowly" is quite a neutral way of phrasing this (this has been agreed to be in the lead for Donald Trump for example).

An editor removed this and suggested this needs to be sourced. Sources for this:

• Forbes and Johnson himself "...mixed messages and a delayed lockdown.... the British prime minister initially resisted imposing a second lockdown.... Johnson reportedly admitted to close aides that the U.K. locked down too late"
• Reuters "Johnson, who contracted the coronavirus himself, was blamed by many scientists for acting too slowly to stop the initial spread in the spring"
• WP "But that go-slow approach by Britain began to shift on Monday... resisting the tough restrictions adopted by its neighbors" and this one also discusses how other European countries were already introducing measures whilst Britain was delaying them, and some of the domestic opposition to delaying restrictions at the time.
• The Times This talks about how Johnson did not attend five meetings of COBR in the early months of the pandemic. "It would not be until March 2 — another five weeks — that Johnson would attend a Cobra meeting about the coronavirus. But by then it was almost certainly too late." There is also a whole book based on this article called Failures of State
• Politico This quotes epidemiologist Neil Ferguson and a Labour health spokesman who say that the government was slow to react.
• Reuters "Johnson, who himself has sickened with the virus, moved more slowly than the leaders of many other prosperous countries to adopt a lockdown. He has been criticised for not moving more swiftly to organise mass tests and mobilise supplies of life-saving equipment and beds."
• AP News quoting a government report "UK's slow virus lockdown"
• The BMJ "By the time the UK formally announced a lockdown with a huge package of economic support measures, almost two months of potential preparation and prevention time were squandered"
• The Guardian
• New Scientist, quoting government report literally says "slow response" in the title
• CNN "This slow approach made the UK an outlier, as its response was less strict than its European counterparts."

Could equally be a different way of phrasing this to encompass resisting implementing measures in the second wave too, sources:

• [23]
• [24]
• [25]

Welcome thoughts. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Arcahaeoindris, the first thing I'd say is that the lead should summarise important content from the article body, and should therefore not need sources added to stuff in it. The body does characterise the government's response as slow, but that assertion is based on opinions and is not an incontrovertible fact. I think the body content needs to be fixed before we worry about what to put in the lead. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Reluctant to implement restrictions? I'm not sure I agree that the characterisation of the response as slow is wholly based on opinion, "the UK was amongst the last major European states to encourage social distancing, close schools, ban public events and order a lockdown" is a factual statement after all. But I do agree that the body wording can potentially be improved to read more clearly, and that lead changes should follow/summarise the body closely. I remember the discussion regarding "slow" on the Trump article – it's a tricky one as it's an inherently normative/judgemental term, but if there's a clear weight of sources which say words to this effect I have no issue with saying so in wikivoice. We don't need to write in a deferential manner, we just need to be careful we're not inserting any disparaging judgement of our own. If the sources aren't as clear-cut as they were for Trump, or they make a more nuanced description of Johnson's response, then a longer, more nuanced sentence is appropriate. I think it's worth referring back to MOS:WTW when trying to summarise, as it's particularly relevant for getting the balance right here – both in terms of avoiding MOS:WEASEL words that are more negative in tone than the sources support, and also in terms of avoiding unnecessary MOS:DOUBT or using MOS:EUPHEMISMs that result in whitewashing what the sources say. Jr8825 • Talk 15:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Or was it a quick response in deciding not to encourage social distancing, close schools, etc. at that early stage? We should be careful not to confuse speed of response with responding in a different way to some other governments who were working with a different set of data, and to different parameters. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to support that interpretation? This sounds a bit like opinion and not an incontrovertible fact to me. This isn't supported by any source in the list above, or in this article, as far as I'm aware. This is not a place to debate this anyway - we are WP:NEUTRAL as Wikipedia editors and only summarise what is in reliable sources.Arcahaeoindris (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Which of those sources support the assertion that is was a slow response? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I have added relevant quotes to the top list. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

But none of them actually say, in the source's voice, that the UK was slow to respond. They are mainly reports of the opinions of various commentators (so would need to be attributed as such and not portrayed as facts), often comparing the UK's actual response (what they did or did not do) with that of other nations, but not necessarily saying the response was slow or slower, just different. And I'm sure if you tried, you could cherry-pick a similar selection of sources supporting the UK responses. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

have just added a few more. Several of them do say, in the source's voice, the word "slow", or otherwise "delay" or "resisted". Arcahaeoindris (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

But do many/any of them actually say in their voice that the government's response to the pandemic in general was slow? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes... that's why "reacted slowly" is being proposed. If we are being more specific, the sources support Johnson and the government being slow to respond to the onset of the pandemic in early 2020. I agree with @Jr8825: completely that the wording should be considered or perhaps more specific/nuanced when being summarised, but the clear weight of sources supports this. If you do not agree that the weight of sources does not support this then feel free to provide some. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The current info about COVID in the lead is a very poor summary of the content in the body, vaguely detailing the government's actions rather than Johnson's, and we should broaden this discussion to pull out what are the key points to mention about Johnson and COVID. His hospitalisation seems relevant for example. "Reacted slowly" seems to be a reasonable way to summarise the first paragraph of the COVID section given that we say "made a number of policy decisions to curb the pandemic some time after the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) advised, then amongst the last major European states to encourage social distancing and This slow response each of which have numerous RS to support them. We do not need a source to explicitly state "reacted slowly". If there is disagreement over precisely what "reacted" means, then something along the lines of "was slow to enact disease control measures in the first and second waves" could work. I'd also be in favour of adding "leading to a high death toll" i.e. summarising thought to have contributed to the UK's high death toll from COVID-19, among the highest in the world in total and by population but appreciate that may be more controversial. SmartSE (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

They may have been just different responses though, not slow responses. That is, conscious and quick responses to follow those advising not to take those actions. That there might have been a change of heart later does not change that. Hindsight cannot be used to judge the past. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Some of the sources describing slowness in introducing restrictions (see Washington Post source) are from during the first wave, and before major restrictions (i.e. school and business closures, lockdown) i.e. not just because of "hindsight". And anyway, plenty of BLP pages examine historical decision making in this way. Look at the lead for Anthony Eden for example. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Surely a response of not acting, then acting after other countries already have, can be summarised as a "slow response"? I don't really follow your argument. Jr8825 • Talk 13:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

As we know, the government has various sources of advice. Their job is to weigh up the pros and cons given to support each offering. It could be that following one offering means rejecting another. If there were two mutually exclusive measures available - A and B - and one advisory group recommended taking measure A for reason X and another group said take measure B for reason Y, and the government chose measure B because they thought Y outweighed X, that doesn't demonstrate a slow response. It might indicate bad advice, or bad judgement, but that's a different matter. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

This is completely irrelevant - we follow the sources rather than using anything that "we know" don't we? Can we find even a single source praising Johnson's rapid reaction to COVID? SmartSE (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with @Smartse: and support all of these suggestions except maybe mentioning death toll. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

"Slowly" is opinion, so needs very strong support to be stated in Wikipedia's voice. As DeFacto points out, its meaning in this context is also unclear as a summary, so even if we did want to convey 'slowness', we should reword it to remove the ambiguity. My more important question, however, is: why should this be in the lead? Why not the widespread praise for the speed of the vaccine rollout, for example? Apart from the final paragraph, the current lead does a decent job of presenting information neutrally (far better than the body), but the addition of terms such as "controversially" and "slowly" jeopardises that. EddieHugh (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @EddieHugh:. There is already a considerable weight of well sourced material to support "slowness" in the COVID-19 pandemic section, some of which I have outlined above. There is not currently any mention of "widespread praise of the vaccine rollout" in the section as it currently stands so as such it has not been suggested. As per WP:LEAD, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". As this is one that has been a defining issue of Johnson's tenure, the lead can at least try to summarise the section for COVID-19; this would not be WP:UNDUE. Many of the sources convey this "slowness" or "delay" to Johnson himself, so to me this would qualify as a "prominent controversy". Leads for other world leaders such as Donald Trump, Jacinda Arden, Scott Morrison, Muhyiddin Yassin and Jair Bolsonaro where the pandemic was a dominant political issue of their premiership, and where weight of sources discuss the reception of their leadership, briefly summarise this in the lead; the case is the same with Johnson so not sure why the lead cannot better summarise this.

As a compromise, perhaps something like "The COVID-19 pandemic became a major crisis in Johnson's second term, his government responded with various emergency powers and introduced measures across society to mitigate its impact. Johnson initially reacted slowly to the outbreak and resisted introducing lockdown measures, although the vaccination programme was the world's first." However, as there is little mention of the vaccination programme in the COVID-19 section at present this would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to it at present. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding the above as does not appear to be any objection.Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2021

Correction of year:

"In November 2016, Johnson told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee..." should be "In November 2017, Johnson told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee..." - change year from 2016 to 2017, as evidenced by the already cited articles (ie. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41890885, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/07/boris-johnson-to-call-iran-in-wake-of-comments-about-jailed-briton) Nosnilmot26 (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

'National conservatism'

Any source for this assertion that he adheres to the ideology of 'national conservatism'?

79.70.176.128 (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Owen Paterson controversy

As we need to decide on the wording, I've removed all of this newly created sub-section for now. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

As it stood, it has several inaccuracies:

1. Johnson used a three-line whip to pass a parliamentary motion...

   No, it was to pass an amendment

2. ... to pass a parliamentary motion preventing the suspension of Owen Paterson

   No, the original motion was to impose the suspension, the amendment was to investigate the process before deciding whether to impose the suspension - and that's what was whipped, and passed

3. An investigation by the independent standards commissioner had found that...

   No, it hadn't found, it had alleged - per quality sources

4. ... committee to reform the standards investigation process...

   No, to examine how investigations are carried out

I tried to fix some of it, but was reverted. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the discussion here. Although I don't think these points warranted removing the whole section, hopefully we can come to agreement and restore it. To respond to your concerns:

re. 1. and 2. The amended motion is still a motion, and I think the detail about it being an amendment is unnecessarily technical (it'll just make it difficult for readers unfamiliar with the ins and outs of parliamentary procedure). I think the specifics are best kept for Owen Paterson – all we need is a summary of the most notable bits of the affair here. If you disagree with the term "motion", we can simply remove it – news sources summaries seem to refer to it as a vote (for example, Reuters says "voted on Wednesday to halt the suspension of a colleague found to have broken paid lobbying rules" and The Independent says "Mr Johnson secured an 18-vote majority in the Commons to prevent the suspension of a Conservative MP who breached parliament’s code of conduct"). Do you think "Johnson used a three-line whip to secure a parliamentary vote preventing the suspension of Owen Paterson" is better?

re. 3. There's due weight for the term "found", not "alleged": this is the language the BBC has been using [26] [27] (also Reuters, other news sources use stronger terms such as "guilty", which I think we should avoid). As it happens, the Conservative MPs interviewed on Newsnight last night said they agreed Paterson had breached the rules, and simply disputed the punishment. A wide range of reliable news sources have printed it as fact that Paterson was found to have broken the rules.

re. 4. I agree with this, I think it can be resolved by rewording it "committee to examine reforms of the standards investigation process". Jr8825 • Talk 16:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Better to agree it all first, before adding it, to help ensure stability. I'm more or less with you on number 1, but for accuracy and clarity I think it needs to say something like "Johnson applied a three-line whip to support an amended commons motion..." - the whip couldn't ensure it was passed, so we can't say that. For number 2, despite how the media spun it or editorialised it, the vote was whether to pass the amended motion - which, whether it was passed or rejected would neither have resulted in the suspension being applied or being "prevented", so it was misleading. How about "... to an amended commons motion which would result in the postponement of the consideration of the recommended suspension of Owen Paterson"? With number 3 you have convinced me that the media more commonly declare it as a verdict than an allegation. With number 4, your rewording looks better to me. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I appreciate the feedback. While I still don't think that "amended" is necessary, I've added it to the proposed text below. However, in my view "Johnson applied a three-line whip to support an amended commons motion which would result in the postponement of the consideration of the recommended suspension of Owen Paterson" is far too convoluted. The detail about the three-line whip can be moved to the sentence about the Conservative rebellion (it's more relevant there anyway), to simplify the sentence slightly. Regarding "postponement of the consideration of the recommended suspension", I firmly believe that "preventing the suspension" is more than adequate – this is effective result, and sources such as the BBC describe it as such (e.g. "[Paterson] was facing suspension - until Tory MPs blocked it by calling for an overhaul of the MPs' standards watchdog instead" [quote from the first BBC link in my above comment]). (It prevented the suspension, called for a re-examination of Paterson's case, and called for a new committee to reform the standards investigatory procedure). How does the following look:

In November 2021, Johnson supported an amended parliamentary motion preventing the suspension of Owen Paterson, a Conservative MP. An investigation by the independent standards commissioner had found that Paterson had abused his position by undertaking paid lobbying on behalf of two companies and the parliamentary committee on standards had recommended a 30-day suspension. The motion called for the creation of a new Conservative-majority committee examine reforms of the standards investigation process, which supporters of the motion said lacked "natural justice". A large number of Conservative MPs refused to support the motion, and 13 defied a three-line whip to vote against it. Following the announcement by opposition parties that they would boycott the new committee, and faced with a backlash in the media and from MPs of all parties, the government reversed its position and announced that a new vote would take place on whether Paterson should be suspended. Paterson announced his resignation as an MP the same day. Jr8825 • Talk 22:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

We're almost there. I'd go with 3 more tweaks (1=replace "preventing" with "postponing"; 2=drop the quotes around "natural justice" (it's a standard English phrase with a well defined meaning); 3=add the missing "to" between "committee" and "examine"): In November 2021, Johnson supported an amended parliamentary motion preventing postponing the suspension of Owen Paterson, a Conservative MP. An investigation by the independent standards commissioner had found that Paterson had abused his position by undertaking paid lobbying on behalf of two companies and the parliamentary committee on standards had recommended a 30-day suspension. The motion called for the creation of a new Conservative-majority committee to examine reforms of the standards investigation process, which supporters of the motion said lacked "natural justice". A large number of Conservative MPs refused to support the motion, and 13 defied a three-line whip to vote against it. Following the announcement by opposition parties that they would boycott the new committee, and faced with a backlash in the media and from MPs of all parties, the government reversed its position and announced that a new vote would take place on whether Paterson should be suspended. Paterson announced his resignation as an MP the same day -- DeFacto (talk). 18:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your second and third fixes. My only reservation remains "postponing" – I don't think it reflects what the larger weight of sources describe it as: a "block" of the recommended suspension. For example, today's BBC article says "On Wednesday, Conservative MPs blocked the Standards Committee's recommendation that Mr Paterson should be suspended..." and the FT piece said "[the] Conservative party blocked the 30-day suspension of a former minister found to have broken lobbying rules". I understand you feel "preventing" is too indefinite (since the presumption was that Paterson's case would still be re-examined). Are you willing to settle on the language of the two above sources and using "blocking" instead of "preventing"? Jr8825 • Talk 14:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

That quote from the BBC article is from the opinion piece at the bottom of the article. In the news portion at the top of the same article it says The vote to reform the rules - backed by MPs on Wednesday - also put on hold a 30-day House of Commons suspension Mr Paterson was facing for breaching the rules by lobbying on behalf of two private companies. And the BBC's earlier report of the result of the vote in parliament said The government did not order its MPs to uphold the proposed suspension... Instead, they were told to back an amendment drawn up by Tory former cabinet minister Andrea Leadsom to pause his suspension and set up a new Tory-majority committee to look at how investigations are carried out. So in those we have "put on hold" and "pause", not "blocked". How about one of those rather than "blocked"? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I think you misread the BBC piece - "blocked" isn't from the analysis section, it's from the news report (the last line of the analysis is "A signal, perhaps, of more tricky votes ahead for ministers"). Regarding the phrasing of the earlier BBC report, to "not uphold" the punishment is effectively the equivalent of blocking it. I feel strongly that "put on hold" or "pause" don't sufficiently convey what the weight of sources say. Let's review them:

• CNN: "Johnson's lawmakers were whipped to vote in favor of overturning the suspension of a fellow Conservative Member of Parliament."
• BBC: "On Wednesday, Conservative MPs blocked the Standards Committee's recommendation that Mr Paterson should be suspended"
• Washington Post: "Lawmakers voted Wednesday not to suspend a Conservative legislator who was found to have broken lobbying rules"
• The Economist: "The government then used its might to rescue Mr Paterson by imposing a three-line whip on its MPs to vote for the amendment."
• The Independent: "U-turn over the decision to block the former cabinet minister’s suspension"
• FT: "[the] Conservative party blocked the 30-day suspension of a former minister found to have broken lobbying rules"
• Reuters: "Britain's governing Conservatives were accused of corruption after they voted on Wednesday to halt the suspension of a colleague found to have broken paid lobbying rules"
• The Guardian: "[the government's] attempt to save the former minister Owen Paterson from suspension"
• AFP (via France 24): "The government tore up the rulebook on how parliament polices ethical lapses by its members ... Rather than endorsing a recommended six-week suspension for Paterson, MPs opted to overhaul parliament's internal disciplinary process."
• Politico: "Prime Minister Boris Johnson had convinced enough MPs on Wednesday to back throwing [Paterson's] case out and overhauling the regime for keeping parliamentarians in check."
• NYT: "On Wednesday he intervened to stop the suspension from Parliament of Owen Paterson, a fellow Conservative Party lawmaker found to have broken rules on political lobbying."

If you still don't think there's due weight for "blocked", perhaps we should consider using WP:3RD? Jr8825 • Talk 19:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Well we could add these to that review too:

• BBC News: "MPs voted in favour of the plan, which also put Mr Paterson's suspension on hold."
• FT: "... the prime minister ordered his MPs to tear up the existing process and postpone the vote on suspension."
• The Herald: "However this [the suspension] has been put on hold after a vote was passed to amend the investigation system."
• i: "MPs vote to put Owen Paterson’s parliamentary suspension on hold and overhaul sleaze watchdog"
• Reuters: "But when parliament was asked to endorse the suspension, a group of Conservatives, with Prime Minister Boris Johnson's support, put forward a proposal to delay it, and instead set up a new committee to review his case and the wider process of investigating lawmakers."
• Sky News: "Conservatives are being urged by party whips to support an amendment which would delay his suspension, pending an overhaul of the entire system."
• The Telegraph: "Conservative MPs rewrote the rulebook on Wednesday as they voted to postpone the suspension of Owen Paterson and set into motion far-reaching reform of the House of Commons standards system."
• ITV News: "... explained why he voted with Opposition politicians and against proposals to reform House of Commons standards investigations and postpone the suspension of Tory MP Owen Paterson."
• Shropshire Star: "The Prime Minister had ordered Conservative MPs to do so [review the case] - and thus delay any potential suspension of Mr Paterson"
• Al Jazeera: "Instead [of voting for it], they pushed through a proposal to delay the suspension and set up a new committee to review the Commons’ disciplinary process."

And, perhaps in contrast to the news media, because opinion pollsters need to be seen to be phrasing their questions neutrally...

• YouGov: "Member of Parliament Owen Paterson has had his suspension from the House of Commons put on hold, as MPs review how their behaviour is monitored. How closely are you following this story?"

I still think "blocked" would give undue weight to that particular (editorialised? sensationalised?) POV, where "postponed"/"on hold"/"delayed" is neutral and a straightforward way of stating what actually happened. We must remember that the vote did not scrap the proposed suspension, it just left it hanging to be addressed at some time in the future. Would you now accept that? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that collection of quotes is more selective, less representative and composed of some weaker sources (I explain why below). In a brief summary (as is appropriate in this article) I'm still of the view that "blocked" conveys the weight of sources more accurately than "postponed". I don't think there's justification for not using "blocked" given the strength of sourcing, or that your concerns about editorialisation/sensationalism are borne out by the sources. In response to it being left hanging in the future, I suppose my concern is that the vote itself effectively stopped the 30-day suspension, with no determined path for reinstation: it may (or may not have) been enforced at a later point, and the aim of the vote was to avoid the 30-day suspension as Paterson's allies claimed it was unfair. That's why sources tend to refer to it as blocking (or similar) in their summaries – it was less 'delaying' than it was 'kicking into the long grass' with the hope of staving off the 30-day punishment, which would likely have left Paterson vulnerable to recall and ended his career. Many of the quotes you provide are part of longer explanations which make the vote's nature clear:

• I can't find "on hold" in the BBC article you linked, although it does say "Ministers continue to face criticism for their botched attempt last week to block Mr Paterson's suspension from Parliament" – perhaps you made a mistake there? It may also have been rewritten, I've found the BBC does sometimes adjust their online articles after publication without explicitly noting they've done so.
• The FT piece is an editorial, whereas I linked a news piece.
• i says putting the suspension "on hold" was essentially "a vote to overturn the suspension", with the consequence that "Owen Paterson escaped a six-week ban from parliament".
• The Reuters article also incudes the quote I picked out above. The wording I highlighted, "halt the suspension", is from the opening, summarising sentence, whereas the quote you selected is from the more detailed explanation further in.
• The Sky piece is also an opinion article, published before the vote took place, and it also describes it as an attempt "to overturn the recommendation of the independent standards commissioner". Sky's news reporting on the affair described it as "a motion in favour of ignoring Mr Paterson's month-long Commons suspension [28] and "the controversial blocking of a Conservative MP's suspension" [29]
• The Telegraph is the closely connected with the Conservative Party and WP:PARTISAN on this issue − Johnson is even reported to have had a private dinner with the editor on the eve of the Paterson vote.
• ITV's main news article on the vote (you're linking an interview article) says "the government is understood to have issued a three-line whip ordering Tory MPs to reject the suspension".
• The Shropshire Star is a local paper, whereas I quoted a range of leading international quality papers.
• Al Jazeera leads up to the sentence you quote with "Conservative members of Parliament, backed by party leader and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, voted against Paterson’s proposed suspension"
• Why should we be falling back to the wording of opinion pollsters' questions when there's an extensive range of RS news media?

I'm grateful for your efforts in engaging with me to make adjustments to the paragraph, but at this point I think we're quite far apart on our interpretation of the weight of sourcing. Would you agree to seek a WP:3RD opinion on this? Jr8825 • Talk 15:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

As we know, most, if not all, news media are biased/partisan to some extent. The Guardian certainly is, as is The Independent. I added the YouGov one as potentially a source of impeccable impartiality - it has to be.

And yes, BBC News seem to have today replaced the article I linked to, here is an archived copy of it before it was changed. I added the Shropshire Star as it is the local to Paterson's constituency. I tried to avoid European and US titles because they they enjoy mischief-making with British politics.

Either way, based on the cross-section of sources we've brought together, I don't think we can say in Wiki's voice that he "supported an amended parliamentary motion blocking the suspension", when there are two strong alternatives to what was being supported. Perhaps a one-size-fits-all compromise something like: "supported an amended parliamentary motion described by commentators variously as something between postponing and blocking the suspension".

If we remain at an impasse, then sure, let's see which way a 3RD leads us. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I've listed it at WP:3O, so let's wait and see what others make of the sources. Thanks for your time on this. Jr8825 • Talk 18:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

It would be good to get some more input from 3O, but how about something like "technically postponed the suspension, but was regarded by commentators as having blocked it" SmartSE (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

References

3O Response: I think it's pretty clear from this discussion that describing what happened in a single word is suboptimal, and may be misleading regardless of which word is chosen. So I think it's better to more thoroughly describe exactly what happened and where things stand, rather than trying to condense it down to a one-word term. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: thanks for sharing your thoughts, it's much appreciated. @DeFacto: I've restored the section to the article with the changes suggested. The first sentence now uses "postponed", and the more detailed discussion of the motion's content now includes a subclause similar to Smartse's suggestion ("described by commentators as an attempt to block the standards committee's recommendation"). Jr8825 • Talk 09:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Prime Minister - to capitalize or not to capitalize?

"is a British politician and writer serving as prime minister of the United Kingdom". Notice how a few days ago, it said "is a British politician and writer serving as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom". I changed it to lower case letters, because articles such as Joe Biden also have their position (President of the United States) lowercase. Thoughts? Ak-eater06 (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Generally speaking, it would work the same way as a term like "doctor". If used as a title preceding a name, it should be capitalized ("Doctor Smith", "Prime Minister Johnson"). If used as a descriptor ("John went to the doctor", "The appointee must be approved by the prime minister"), it should not be capitalized. In the instance you specify, it indeed should not be, as it is not used as a title immediately preceding a name. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLES would apply. "When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description:". As "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" is not preceded by a modifier, definite or indefinite article ("the", a"", or "an"), it denotes a title and should be capitalized. —WildComet ^talk 06:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

‎Allegations of anti-Scottish bigotry section trimmed

Why has this entire section been trimmed? Csmith8 (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The reasons given were WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. — Czello 07:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Marbella trip

@DeFacto: I don't understand your revert stating in the edit summary "not supported by the cited sources". Everything there seems to be sourced perfectly adequately. We can debate WP:WEIGHT of the different parts added, but it is disingenious to suggest that it is not sourced. SmartSE (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The cited source says: Documents seen by the Guardian indicate the luxurious villa, lent to him by environment minister Zac Goldsmith... and On Monday, a Downing Street... refused to confirm who was funding the stay at Goldsmith’s estate near Marbella.

• You interpreted that as: Johnson received a free holiday at a villa in Marbella, Spain, funded by the family of Lord (Zac) Goldsmith.

The cited source says: The papers suggest the minister and his family may have owned the property through a Maltese company held by companies in the Turks and Caicos Islands and administered by a wealth planning firm based in Switzerland.

• You interpreted that as: The villa was held by an offshore tax structure based in multiple tax havens.

The cited source says: the prime minister declared £1,800 of hospitality from Heathrow.

• You interpreted that as: ... and claiming £1,800 of hospitality from the Windsor suite at Heathrow's Terminal 5....

I hope that helps. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Sorry for not responding to this btw... where does time go? I do see your point, although that could have been resolved through editing rather than reversion. It wasn't me interpreting the source originally though, it was AFreshStart. Something about this does still merit inclusion somewhere, but probably in Premiership of Boris Johnson rather than here. SmartSE (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, time passes relentlessly, and with no consideration given to Wiki editors. I thought that if neutrally presented, that story was weightless. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Shaking hands

@DeFacto: Can you please explain which part of WP:BLP requires this. I didn't say, but I did review BLP myself before reverting and couldn't see anything which would cover this. If it were an allegation, it would be different, but the first sentence is straightforward and undeniable. SmartSE (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It was a one-side portrayal which might have led readers to a false conclusion. Better to give all the available information to help readers reach a better informed understanding. Covered, in spirit at least, by WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see at as one-sided - it is a straightforward description of what occurred. Further, I don't see anything in those parts of BLP which mean that the subject has a right for their spokesperson to provide an alternative viewpoint. This from the FT via Proquest has more info about him shaking hands on the days after the SAGE meeting too. SmartSE (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

ITV news

In this edit is it suggested that the email on behalf of Martin Reynolds may not have happened? Is it suggested that ITV News may have been lying? Are we not allowed to include what ITV News reported until Sue Gray has published a formal report? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Have they substantiated their allegation? Why have they blurred-out who sent the email "on behalf of" Reynolds? Why have they blurred-out the email date? There are currently too many unknowns to be able to assert this stuff in Wiki's voice. Have they revealed the identities >100 employees they say it was sent to? It may be true and genuine, but we simply do not have enough detail to make it verifiable yet. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, photographic evidence. I imagine blurred out to protect, i.e. not embarrass, the source. Of course, if there's a ongoing police enquiry into Johnson, maybe we'll soon need to mark this article as "sub judice"? I think the attribution of the claim to ITV News is already pretty clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess we're all expecting renewed editing interest in this article following PMQs today... Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

ITV is usually a reliable source. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Boris Litwin

Purnell (2011) does not show p. 11 in the linked limited preview and Gimson (2012) links directly to the Wikipedia article for the book. But the story is recounted here, for example. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It's cited in Gimson's book.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

American-born???

I have removed "American-born". It's true that Boris Johnson was born in America, but his parents are English and his family moved back to England a year after he was born. Johnson doesn't consider himself to be American.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2022

Incumbent Prime Minister until 2022 Baglan123 (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Recentism

We seem to have gone a bit over the top with adding content over the last few days. I think we should consider what could be trimmed down and which are the most salient points to include. Arguably, opinions by individuals are probably not due, as we decided about many of the lying allegations. I'm going to make a few bold edits and will explain my reasoning in the edit summaries. SmartSE (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I'll watch to see your changes. Jr8825 • Talk 20:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Now that things have settled down, while we await the result of the enquiry (!), I agree we should look to summarise this week's events as this article will soon become a historical one about a former roadrunner. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Whatever do you mean?? Has Sir Graham Brady been struggling to open an enormous sack of letters this morning??? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

LOL! No Great Shaker (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Proxima Centauri: Regarding this it wasn't removed without any reason, but because I didn't consider that the information was WP:DUE and also due to WP:RECENTISM. This article is describing a person described in thousands of sources and we need to condense them to the most pertinent parts. That content doesn't seem very directly related to Johnson in my opinion - calls for a police investigation, but not about Johnson, one donor's comments and one opposition leaders remarks. There is the partygate article for going into that level of detail. Can you please explain why you think these are worth including here? SmartSE (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Never lied (yet)

I'd like to point out that Johnson has never lied about the cheese and wine "work meeting" in the garden of 10 Downing Street on Friday 15 May 2021: [30]: "On that day Matt Hancock, then health secretary, had given a 5pm press conference urging people to stick to the rules and not take advantage of the good weather over the May weekend to socialise in groups." Perhaps Johnson missed the press conference? Cheese and wine doesn't just nip down to Waitrose and buy itself, you know! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure the "Bring Your Own Boris" knees up, on 20 May 2020, was all just a big misunderstanding. And I'm equally sure that Johnson will clarify whether or not he was there, as soon as Sue Gray has discovered that he was. But I'd suggest that this latest revelation^{[*see below]} might deserve just a teensy-weensy mention in this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Revelation? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant carefully planned Dominic Cummings hatchet job. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree it should be in the article. It is now. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

With members of his own party now asking for his resignation, this seems to be more than just another "embarrassment". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC) p.s. these are actual requests for his resignation, not "alleged" ones.

The BBC is now doing a handy list of all the COVID lockdown parties which were allegedly held by Downing Street, Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I added this to the article. It clearly shows Johnson contradicting himself and the BBC is a reliable source. It was later taken out. I restored it. Videos of Johnson contradicting himself are evidence of him being less than truthful. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Proxima Centauri: Not sure what relevance this has to this section, but given that you've posted here, I'll reply here. As I said when I first removed it, there is nothing in that source which says that he's contradicted himself and it is your own interpretation that that is what it shows. In order to to include that content, we need a source which explicitly states that he has contradicted himself. WP:BLP gives us very little leeway on this. SmartSE (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Partygate

The issue which became most controversial for Boris Johnson was the so-called "Partygate" scandal which emerged in late 2021 and early 2022. While a number of restrictions were decreed for the general public it emerged that Downing Street staff had been breaking the rules by holding parties in the garden of number 10. It was felt that this was laughing at the general public who adhered to the rules restricting social gatherings. "It's my party and I'll lie if I want to" was a term erroneously attributed to the Tory leader. The universal condemnation of the media reflected the public disgust that a set of rules which divided families from each other during the pandemic was flagrantly disregarded in Downing Street as the staff were invited to "bring a bottle" to one event descibed as a "business meeting".

The leader of the opposition would normally have been reprimanded for a breach of parliamentary etiquette for calling the PM "a liar" but there was no objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User1951 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Starmer's phrase was very deft: "Can't the Prime Minister see why the British public think he’s lying through his teeth?” Speaker Lindsay Hoyle allowed it, saying: "It was what the public think, not what a member is saying." Personally, I think this was one of Starmer's best performances in recent months. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, though normally I prefer to see Angela Rayner putting the questions to Johnson. She is much more direct; Starmer is too lawyerly. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

There's a case for having the version below or something like it in the article.
"Partygate
The issue which became most controversial for Boris Johnson was the so-called "Partygate" affair, which emerged in late 2021 and early 2022. While a number of restrictions were in force for the general public it emerged that Downing Street staff had been breaking the rules by holding parties or so-clled, 'work events' in the garden of number 10 and eleswhere in No. 10. It was felt that this was disrespectful to those in the general public who adhered to the rules restricting social gatherings. "It's my party and I'll lie if I want to" was a term erroneously attributed to the Tory leader. The universal condemnation of the media reflected the public disquiet that a set of rules which divided families from each other during the pandemic was disregarded in Downing Street as, for example, the staff were invited to "bring a bottle" to one event descibed as a "business meeting". The leader of the opposition would normally have been reprimanded for a breach of parliamentary etiquette for calling the PM "a liar" but there was no objection." Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need this because the key point in the first sentence has already been covered adequately. The rest is true enough but it goes outside the scope of a biography. And, a minor point only, I don't agree with using the term "Partygate" because it isn't in wide currency yet. Also, Starmer didn't call Johnson a liar – he said the British people think he's a liar, which is quite different. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Suggestion to edit protect the article for a few weeks

due to current events Josephwhyman041104 (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It's already semi-protected which ought to be sufficient. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Remarkably, this article hasn't needed strong protection for years. Any request for protection needs to be accompanied by persuasive evidence of disruption. Cullen328 (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)