Jump to content

Talk:Boris Johnson/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Petronella Wyatt

@DeFacto: reverted an edit by me but I have since noticed an inconsistency so bringing it to the talk page. One section of the article (Boris Johnson#Becoming an MP) states "Johnson had been having an affair with Spectator columnist Petronella Wyatt, resulting in two abortions", whereas the Boris Johnson#Relationships section states "Johnson had an affair with Spectator columnist Petronella Wyatt when he was its editor, resulting in a terminated pregnancy and a miscarriage."

The term termination of pregnancy is a synonym for abortion and the wikipedia article on it is a redirect to abortion, so I wouldn't have thought changing that bit so that it reflects the most commonly-used term and title of the article would be an issue– however I'm struggling to find any information about whether there was one abortion and one miscarriage, or two abortions. This Guardian article from 2004 indicates that the Daily Mail claimed there were two abortions but Wyatt's mother claimed there was only one, so the latter seems more likely- any more definitive info available on that so we can make sure the article is correct in both places Johnson's relations with Wyatt are discussed? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 22:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Tatler source

The Tatler source being used for the divorce from Marina Wheeler does not say they divorced in November 2020.[1], neither do reliable sources. Please remove November and keep 2020. 2A00:23C7:1104:F601:A1BE:310B:E1A0:5C81 (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cherrell410(t · c) 16:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@Cherrell410: I believe they want the mention of "November" to be removed from the and the divorce was finalised by November 2020 statement. Looking at the cited source, I certainly can't see it. Digging further, I couldn't find any reliable source that specifies the month. M.Bitton (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@M.Bitton: I get that, but they didn't specify where in the article this should happen, nor did they use an x to y format. Cherrell410(t · c) 18:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Length

At nearly 20k words, this article is in significant need of being made more concise, per WP:TOOBIG. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I made a similar point recently that was completely ignored - Talk:Boris_Johnson/Archive_10#Not_News - but also see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YEARTEST. Some of the stuff added to this article in mid-2019 is relatively pointless (for example, a random spending commitment from Sajid Javid when he was Chancellor which is somehow its entire section in this article). Completely in agreement this needs to be chopped and most of the chopping can be done in the extremely long Premiership section. Spa-Franks (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree completely @Nikkimaria @Spa-Franks. I've started to trim down the Premiership section as I believe it should only act as a brief summary, feel free to join in Michaeldble (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

"Libertarian"

Calling him this label is very questionable indeed. In government he initiated a brutal lockdown, surpressed dissent and even tried to legislate about what food and drink we eat. Libertarian? I think this label violates a neutral point of view. 2.98.183.194 (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: The references to "libertarian" or "libertarianism" in the article text all use in-text attribution to the individual or publication giving this view. The categories claiming this characterisation have been removed, as they are not sufficiently verifiable by reliable sources. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! These statements cannot be accurately verified. 2.98.183.194 (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Former politician

Propose that the first line: "Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (/ˈfɛfəl/, born 19 June 1964) is a British politician"

Should be changed to "Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (/ˈfɛfəl/, born 19 June 1964) is a British former politician"

As he is no longer a working politician - he resigned. This would align the description of him with other former politicians on Wiki, e.g. the first line of John Major's wiki entry. 86.166.172.105 (talk) 05:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Too soon. Major hasn't been an MP for over 20 years and he stated at the time that he was out for good. Johnson hasn't been an MP for a few months and I'm not aware of a statement that he's out for good: he's a former MP, but might not be a former politician. EddieHugh (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Own chapter

Maybe you should put all his controversies, criminal career, and so on, in a chapter of it's own to make it all better to read? 188.113.95.213 (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia policy to avoid controversy sections whenever possible. (See WP:CRITS.) It would be very hard to do anyway. Johnson's controversies are woven into his various careers to the point where they could not easily be separated out into their own section without completely breaking up the sequential flow of the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:GB News newsreaders and journalists

Can this category be added to this page? He's now a part of GB News. 195.99.227.0 (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Has he actually started yet? The article only mentions it being announced. Also, would he even be joining as a newsreader/journalist? It sounds more like he will be a presenter of an opinion/analysis show. I'm not sure if those belong in that category? If not, Category:GB News might be an alternative. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2023

Delete this text: 'Honorary Fellowship of the Royal Institute of British Architects (Hon FRIBA),[878] 2011[879]' 2A02:C7C:369C:4100:A1:3418:4A5D:BA7D (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Why? I see that there were calls for this title to be stripped, but I can't find anything about it coming to fruition. SmartSE (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
If the award is rescinded then we should not just remove mention of it. We should briefly cover that it was awarded and then rescinded. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Can the description be change from politician to former politician

Giving that both Nadine Dorries and Boris Johnson are no longer members of parliament and giving that on the wiki page of Nadine Dorries that she's now a former politician. I believe the same applies to Boris Johnson, so please can someone update the description saying that Boris is now a former politician. 82.19.40.217 (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Ex Prime Ministers will remain politicians. Look at Tony Blair/Gordon Brown! Nadine Dorries is a privy councilor, she too remains a politician as a former Minister. https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/privy-council/privy-council-members/#dJaymailsays (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Boris Johnson's interests as recorded in Companies House

Boris Johnson became a director of Black Rock Productions Limited on 7 April 2006. It was established by Warren Street Registrars Limited, as director, and Warren Street Nominees Limited, as secretary, registration agents who resigned the same day. Two co-directors were also appointed on 7 April 2006, John David Nicholas Jeffcock and Barnaby John Benison Spurrier. The company name was changed to FINLAND STATION LIMITED on 19 Mar 2007. Boris Johnson resigned on 23 May 2008 and the company was dissolved on 5 April 2016. The last accounts were made up to 28 February 2015 which means that the final accounts are overdue. AlisonDueDiligence (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

And that's relevant because...? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
It isn't. If he was a current director of any companies that might be relevant, but he's not. Black Kite (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
He purports to be two people in Companies House and this has corrupted any audit or due diligence associated to him, even now, because conflicts or mutual interests can occur after the event. AlisonDueDiligence (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Do you mean that some of his interests are registered under slightly different names? Not sure if that's unlawful. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
To create two identities you have to vary one of: the name, date of birth or usual residential address. You are supposed to keep your details up to date. Because he has registered 2 identities, Companies House presents material misinformation by stating "Total number of appointments : 1" in each identity. AlisonDueDiligence (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Um... but it's obvious it's the same person, i.e. him? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
When I showed this to a recently retired chartered accountant, he said he had no idea that people could have multiple identities. None of the audit protocols include searching on a director's name in Companies House. He said every audit he's ever done is potentially compromised by multiple identities he failed to check for, because the ISO240 does not draw attention to this type of fraud, so there are no measures to mitigate the risk. The Financial Conduct Authority define clone firm fraud but not clone individual fraud. Going into Companies House is normally done via the company name. Once in the record of one identity you have no idea of the other identity's existence. So they are never considered within an audit. AlisonDueDiligence (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
You're accusing Johnson of fraud? Or is it that just the recently retired chartered accountant? Unfortunately they're not considered WP:RS. If you find a source that is, which mentions these anomalies, together with their significance, they maybe we could add something. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Computer audit software would be unaware that the other identity exists. Note that both his interests It gets more interesting when we start to look at his co-directors. His other identity is as Boris Johnson, director of the London Climate Change Agency. I'll do a better summary shortly. I'm working on it over in substack: https://open.substack.com/pub/alisonwright/p/boris-johnson-due-diligence-two-identities?r=15h096&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcome=true AlisonDueDiligence (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Are you offering some kind of "computer audit software" to Companies House? That's very charitable of you. You think they are unaware that he's got slightly different details there? Do you think he has broken the law? Best tell the press! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Creating multiple identities can be done accidentally. In which case, they will have declared all their interests. If they have failed to declare all their interests then this is evidence that the created the duplicate identity in order to conceal the interest. Which is fraudulent. AlisonDueDiligence (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
I think there may be a logical error in that reasoning. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Creating multiple identities can be done accidentally. In which case, they will still declare all of their interests in whichever firms' Register of Interests, as they have not created multiple identities intentionally, in order to conceal interests. So, whether or not they declare all their interests in the relevant Register of Interest is a test of whether the duplicate identities was established with the intent to deceive. If they have failed to declare all their interests, then, this is evidence that they created the duplicate identity in order to conceal the interest. Which is fraudulent. AlisonDueDiligence (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
It's really common for this to happen at Companies House, though, usually because people sometimes include middle names and sometimes don't, get married and don't update the one with their maiden name, etc. etc. Unless Johnson was actually trying to push a narrative that these are two different people - which he's clearly not because they obviously are - I don't think there's an issue here. Also, we'd need reliable sources commenting on the issue anyway; I suspect the fact that none appear to have done so gives us an idea of how important it is - or, in this case, isn't. Black Kite (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, people do move house occasionally... one minute you're in Downing Street... the next minute, you're not! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Each year the director has to confirm their registration details are correct as part of the process leading up to the confirmation statement as well as for the accounts. The officer has a duty to update the register within 2 weeks of changes and there's provision for changing addresses, changing names etc. AlisonDueDiligence (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
So when the CEO at Companies House Louise Smyth, announces publicly, that she has found a problem with Mr Johnson's details, and this has been widely reported in WP:RS secondary sources, we can add something to the article, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

"Johnson is seen by many as a controversial figure in British politics"

This statement from the lead section is banal when applied to most politicians who have been in competitive elections. It is based on sources from 2019 and thus quite possibly anachronistic. Here in 2024, the British people are, as has been covered in reliable sources, fairly united on the topic of Boris Johnson (see, e.g., 1 2 ).

Frankly I think we can just delete this whole paragraph from the lead section as undue there. Instead, we can simply state factually that he wrote some books and made television appearances, and that there have been controversies around statements he has made. FOARP (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Buses

Re this edit. I agree that it's insignificant and probably shouldn't even be mentioned. We definitely should not be taking him at his word, considering many have suggested Johnson might have said that to fiddle with search engine results.[2][3][4] – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The current wording is "has said", which is neutral and much more improved than "claimed". That said, there is a question about whether it's notable enough to be mentioned at all. — Czello (music) 16:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
As a stand-alone statement, Johnson's building model buses is indeed insignificant. However, I think the fact that he once said this is notable, contributing to the article's overall impression of the man. It should be restored. Incidentally, thanks to User:Nikkimaria for all their work in condensing this article. Masato.harada (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Masato.harada - could you elaborate on why you feel this is notable? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Johnson's career has been accompanied by constant accusations of facetiousness and his spreading myths and lies. His 2019 statement about building model buses for relaxation is another example, unsupported by evidence from him. Masato.harada (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
This is a strange hill to die on. We don't normally demand evidence for a subject's hobbies. Indeed it really works the other way – we'd need evidence that he's actively lying about this. Even then, I'm sceptical about how notable this is. — Czello (music) 13:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Other areas to shorten

"The subsections of "First term: 2008–2012" could do with some chopping/summarizing, especially since this is a spun-off topic.

The second term section seems an acceptable length. SecretName101 (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Does any one actually call Boris Johnson "BoJo"

Particularly anyone outside of Australia. Seeing people say Boris Johnson is nicknamed "Bojo" just looks like someone is trying to crib Scott Morrison's style by applying the formula of his nickname (Scomo) to Borris Johnson Soft and Stout (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Probably more when he was Mayor of London rather than during his term as PM, but I've heard it quite a lot. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
American here who is a somewhat regular reader of British news. Pretty popular news media and tabloid shorthand. Also common online/social media parlance about him. I sense that it is at least sometimes derisive, seeking to paint him as diminutive and as a tabloid figure rather than a distinguished statesman. I'm not sure if anyone uses it as a term of endearment or reverence about him, perhaps some do. And perhaps my read that it is sometimes derisive is completely off-base. SecretName101 (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
This is obviously more anecdotal, but I call him that all the time, and no one ever bats an eyelid when I do. Probs more common than "Johnson" in everyday use (apart from in specifically formal newspapers or whatever), and I don't think many British people would be familiar with "Scomo" for Scott Morrison (I certainly wasn't), so I doubt it was specifically based off that. Farleigheditor (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it was used quite a lot back in the day, when he was fairly popular. Certainly where I live, people tend to use more pejorative terms about him now. Black Kite (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Splitting proposal - new article: "Early life and career of Boris Johnson"

CONSENSUS AGAINST
There is consensus against splitting the page. The argument that an "early life" page would not be notable by itself was not adequately responded to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There has been a {{very long}} template on this article since added by User:Tim O'Doherty in June '23, and User:Tpbradbury has just updated the template's word count to 19,000. (Thanks both!)

Based on the rule of thumb at WP:SIZESPLIT that pages over 15,000 words "almost certainly should be divided or trimmed", I propose that the Early life and education and Early career sections of this article be split into a seperate page called Early life and career of Boris Johnson.

The rationale for turning those two sections into that specific page is that:

I believe Johnson's early career (especially Spectator/Henley) is notable enough, well-sourced enough, and these sections large enough, to make its own page.

Your thoughts welcome.

Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jonathan Deamer - Nice to see some action being taken, good on you for that. I'm not sure an entire new article's the best solution, but it's certainly an option. I think there is a lot of cruft and detail then can be condensed or removed in the article itself, certainly later down too. I might pursue that first. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Support: I was thinking of something very similar to this just the other day. It would be a strong step in the right direction to address the prose size issue, so I can get behind it since it's also been done for other prominent leaders. TheBritinator (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - I feel this is an article about Boris Johnson as a person and politician, it should stay here but I'd suggest trim it a little. Lagwerious (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:DB33:8300:7033:EFA6:551A:4312 (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  • oppose - The solution to excessive page length is to make the page more concise. Also there's at least a bit of question-mark over stand-alone notability for this topic since BoJo is not Churchill and his early life is rarely talked about as a notable topic in and of itself. FOARP (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
    That could also work, but I find a separate page to be more suitable. TheBritinator (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Entirely agree with FOARP. The solution is to make the page more concise. His main notability is due to having been PM, and that was for only 3 years. The page is currently far too long and detailed compared with the equivalent sections for other modern PMs, say, Churchill (8.5 years), Wilson (7.5 years), Thatcher (11.5 years) or Blair (10 years). Masato.harada (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
    To be fair this recentism bias is everywhere in Wikipedia. It's not just there being more information, it's about partisanship meaning that fact X has to be included despite it being undue in a encyclopaedia article, which in turn means that fact Y also needs to be included to give "balance". Historical subject matter is dealt with more objectively.
    Take, for example, the statement in the lead section that "Johnson is seen by many as a controversial figure in British politics". Do we bother including a statement like this about Ramsay MacDonald or Ted Heath? Despite both being "divisive" - a banal and unrevealing statement about most politicians who have fought competitive elections? No because there is no group of partisans who wish to indicate that Heath or MacDonald were unpopular. But the statement that BoJo was "divisive" then needs to be balanced out with something else, so instead we have the statement right after it. All of this leads to massive bloat of the article. Additionally, it's anachronistic as polling seems to show the public pretty united on the topic of Boris Johnson. FOARP (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree that making the main article more concise is somehow incompatible with this proposal. If anything, the reverse is true. It allows us to retain notable information about his early life on Wikipedia without contributing great length to the article. By spinning-off a section, you always give far greater liberty for that section to be made concise. SecretName101 (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Support There's enough verifiable material from RS to support such an article. ~ HAL333 17:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - make this page more concise - as argued by FOARP. Having more than one page on Johnson may look ridiculous in a few years: he is rarely mentioned in the media already. His early life is hardly notable and can be usefully "pruned" here - compare its length with that of (say) David Cameron, PM for 6 years (although we know BJ wishes to compare himself with Churchill !). On top of that, there are already articles such as the 2019 Conservative Party leadership election. Roy Bateman (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:SIZESPLIT, more detail can be moved to another such page and it can be written in summary style here.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the solution to this tricky issue is not another article. The solution is cutting, condensing and trimming. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the article reads like one of Johnson's own statements. The solution is to make the page more concise. As with any other encyclopaedic WP article, just because there's "enough verifiable material" for a new article doesn't mean there should be one. Masato.harada (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This bloated monstrosity for a relative lightweight politician is laughable. Radical cutting is the answer, not splitting and further bloating. - SchroCat (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - In my opinion, the topic of 'Boris Johnson's early life and career' is not, in and of itself, notable - in a nutshell, I don't think anyone really cares about it much anymore. The cause of this article being too long is that there are extremely long sections on topics which already have main articles. For example:

There's probably more examples. I think the best way forward to reduce the length of this article is to cut & paste large chunks from these sections into the corresponding main articles. Mmitchell10 (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
PS. The correct process for cutting & pasting chunks from one article to another is outlined at WP:SECMOVE. Mmitchell10 (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Oppose per Mmitchell10's argument. Johnson's early life and career aren't independently notable enough to warrant an entire article and a lot of the puff on this page is down to unnecessary info throughout the article that can be moved to the other articles like much of the Premiership stuff and so on. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
    These are largely notable facts about Johnson's biography. Boris himself is notable. Notable facts about him should be included on the project.
    The question of "how the man was made" is a pretty big point of discussion/speculation for those who rise to lead G7 nations.
    However, great details on these facts are not the prime area of interest that many people come to his page to read. Many are more interested in his national political career. Hence why spinning this content off to be independent is useful: people can still find information/answers about this point in his life on Wikipedia, but others won't need to scroll past all of that detail in the top of his article. SecretName101 (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Turned away

On 2 May Johnson was turned away from his local polling station, for the 2024 United Kingdom local elections, after forgetting his required photo ID. This has been very widely reported: AP, Sky, BBC, The Independent, Reuters, The Guardian, ITVX, etc., etc. I'm surprised this is not mentioned, especially considering which Prime Minister was responsible for the relevant legislation. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Why didn't you just add it? As long as you keep it accurate, neutral, in-context, and policy compliant, unlike yesterday's inaccurate, one-sided, and context-free attempt. The Guardian can help further, it has a more up-to-date article about it today, covering Johnson's own coverage of the event from his Daily Mail column too. We could possibly create a whole section about it, if not even a new article? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's particularly noteworthy personally. This article is already too long to begin with, and I'm not convinced it passes the WP:10YEARTEST. Michaeldble (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I can't quite decide if it's just a publicity stunt or if he really is that stupid: "... I appeared in the polling station with nothing to prove my identity except the sleeve of my copy of Prospect magazine, on which my name and address had been printed..." Martinevans123 (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Or just another example of his renowned absent-mindedness? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Ah yes. Inventing rules that others should follow. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
As entertaining as it is, this really doesn't seem notable enough for this page. It's already ridiculously bloated to begin with Michaeldble (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
So it could be trimmed. Ridiculously trimmed, even. I'd suggest it's far more relevant here than at 2024 United Kingdom local elections. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
I meant the article was too bloated btw. I was going to suggest moving it to the local elections & Elections Act 2022 articles possibly Michaeldble (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that might be even funnier more relevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it would be due or relevant in either the 2024 United Kingdom local elections or the local elections & Elections Act 2022 articles. It's more to do with Johnson's character than election law. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Tend to agree. Although yes, he probably deserves a mention at Zip line. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
I meant that it could be included in those articles with the angle of there being difficulties in implementing the new legislation with this as an example. I just don't think we should have it here - we don't need to include everything that's mentioned about him in reliable sources, he's probably the most high profile British politician of the last 10 years. Michaeldble (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
This wasn't an example of difficulties implementing the legislation though, this was an example of how well it worked, with even when a well-known character having to go home to get his ID after he had forgotten to bring it. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
But it is an example of Johnson forgetting about rules he himself introduced in government? That's partly why it's received so much media coverage. Unless, perhaps, he just wanted to publicly demonstrate how well the legislation works. Although that might be uncharitable. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Move it to 2024_United_Kingdom_local_elections? Uwappa (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Or let DeFacto create his stand-alone article? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Ha ha, yes, go for it! How about a light hearted page called Boris Bloopers or BoJo fun facts, which includes other funny moments such as the dangling on a zip wire? Uwappa (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
I won't be creating an article on it. I don't mind it being in this article so long as the context is all kept intact. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
And let's all not forget Peppa Pig World... Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC) truly amazing
How about a new subchapter in Public_image_of_Boris_Johnson#Political_image? Uwappa (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps it's becoming obvious that we may need to make allowances for someone who is now getting even more befuddled and forgetful in his later years? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that might be a possibility. Although this was something really "outside" politics? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Can we settle this one? At time of writing, the article simply states that Johnson was turned away from voting. In my opinion, this fact on its own is not especially notable. However, the important and notable fact is that Johnson himself introduced the Elections Act, and he then appeared to be unaware of its provisions on this occasion and tried to circumvent them. So, either the entire statement should be removed, or the information about the Act should be restored. Opinions? Masato.harada (talk) 08:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

On wonders why he would mention or present his copy of Prospect magazine. Because he had forgotten it was useless? Because he wanted to test the system? As one of his funny bumbling jokes, so he'd make the headlines? For some other reason(s)? Maybe he thought he had his passport with him, but just discovered he'd mistakenly left it at home. It's hard to know, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Fine. So should the incident be in or out? ~~~ Masato.harada (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I think it should be in. As it was very widely reported in the news. That's why I added it. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
This episode is unlikely to have enduring significance and should be excluded. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I'd agree that "Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events..." We all are those, aren't we. Relative and enduring significance will depend on how long he lives and what he does next. As he's no longer an MP, his political career seems to be on a diminishing path. But who knows. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

There's been a lot of chat on this topic, but not many specific opinions on my request to settle it. Therefore, I am going to restore the clause about the Elections Act, which was introduced by Johnson himself. This is the notability of the incident. Masato.harada (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories missing from this article

Having committed a criminal offence
the subject of this article qualifies for category inclusion in -
Category:British_politicians_convicted_of_crimes
Category:Category:English_politicians_convicted_of_crimes 88.97.236.184 (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: In law there is a distinction between committing an offence and being convicted of an offence. Article subject was determined by the filth to have committed an offence. This does not mean that he is convicted of an offence. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Nah - nice try, but: "Category:British politicians convicted of crimes says: ...."This category records crimes that are important to British politicians notability, which will in general be serious crimes. Normally summary offences, usually dealt with in magistrates' courts or similar, will not result in an entry here." Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

"Johnson referred to the Roman statesman Cincinnatus. Some commentators noted that, while, as Johnson said, Cincinnatus returned to his plough, he was also later recalled to power"

Do we still need to include this sentence? It clearly implies Johnson will also return to power, despite the chances of that happening being slim to none. ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boris_Johnson/Archive_11&oldid=1256555816"