Talk:Boris Johnson/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

RfC: Socially liberal

The consensus is that the first paragraph of the intro should not state that Johnson "has been associated with both economically and socially liberal policies".

Cunard (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2019 (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.

---

Should the first paragraph of the intro state that Johnson "has been associated with both economically and socially liberal policies"? 02:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Prior discussion: 1, 2

Survey

• No. I don't begrudge that the guy is liberal on some social issues but since it's barely covered in the article and hardly what he's known for I think mentioning it twice (or at all) in the intro goes against MOS:LEADREL. There's one line saying he voted "to repeal Section 28 and supported the Gender Recognition Act 2004" (edit: the first was passed 335 to 26, the second 368 to 76, with Tories given a free vote on both), one on him banning some homophobic bus adverts and then a few people saying he's liberal without elaboration in the slightly out-of-date "Political views and ideology" section. I mean, it's a long article. Bear in mind as well the difference between passively holding certain views and promoting them, campaigning for them, making clear you think they're important (more important than other things), which is the usual criteria for being "associated" with something as a politician. In any case the idea is already handled better by the line on LGBT rights (also in the intro) which is more specific and placed chronologically. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 02:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. Such wording helps to contextualise where Johnson stands, ideologically speaking, within the Conservative movement. The "Political views and ideology" section contains plenty of reliably sourced statements attesting to the fact that Johnson is a liberal, so I think it important that this is reflected in the lede. The wording has been in place for many years, although that in itself is not a reason for removal. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• No, absolutely not. This is at best blatantly misleading and WP:UNDUE – especially in the first paragraph and with no mention of how he is commonly perceived today and no meaningful contextualisation – and in fact comes quite close to a falsehood. It's not at all how Johnson has been commonly perceived in the years that he has been a national-level political figure, a member of the cabinet and PM, and even if he was previously "many years" ago, long before he rose to national and international prominence and influence, associated with some liberal views, it's not representative (and this is really the key issue here) of the policies that Johnson as a national-level politician, Brexiteer and PM is known for advocating. It looks like an attempt to push a fringe POV that Trump-style nationalist, anti-immigrant, right-wing populism is "liberal". We don't describe Trump as liberal in the lead either, even though he could be said to be personally "associated" with some "liberal" views in the past, because it's not representative of the policies of Trump as a politician/President; the same goes for leaders of comparable parties in other countries, such as the Alternative for Germany. The sentence has been edit-warred into the article by a single editor without any form of consensus/support, and should have been removed a long time ago. --Tataral (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, or at least somewhere in the lead. This is the third time this has been brought up in the last three months. Far from having being "edit-warred into the article", the warning not to change the wording under discussion here has been in the article for more than 3 years, and the sentence itself has existed for ~4.5 years. Some people might not like the fact that it's supported by sources, or that more recent sources exist, but we present what the sources say, not what our own opinions are. EddieHugh (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 1) Johnson today is primarily notable for his political career since he joined the cabinet, became a candidate for PM, and then became PM. Anything he did before that, in local politics, is a less important aspect of his biography compared to his later activities. The primary topic of this article, the national-level right-wing populist politician and Brexiteer, simply didn't exist 5 years ago. Any sources from 5 years ago or more are outdated and less relevant, and do not justify falsely portraying his policies on the national stage today as "liberal", especially in the first paragraph and without any discussion of his current policies and views. Instead, this material belongs, in the past tense, somewhere below, preferably in the body of the article where his earlier activities/views are discussed, not WP:UNDUE-style in the first paragraph of the lead.
  • 2) The sentence and the hidden comment have been added unilaterally without discussion or consensus, and have been edit-warred into the article by a single editor as recently as this year, despite being opposed by multiple editors as recently as this year, and judging by previous discussion there is consensus against the sentence as part of the first paragraph.
  • 3) This RfC is specifically about "the first paragraph" of the lead, not about "somewhere" in the lead or article. Nobody has disputed that the sentence can be mentioned "somewhere" in an appropriate context and in the past tense when discussing his earlier views and activities. The problem is its prominent inclusion in the first paragraph of the lead, which doesn't contain any other discussion of his views, as if he is primarily perceived now in his capacity as a national-level politician and PM as a "social liberal" instead of an anti-immigrant, nationalist, "pandering to the far right" populist, as most members of polite society/commentators view him. --Tataral (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

1) Johnson's been a high-profile figure in British politics for a decade. The only topic of this article is Boris Johnson; there is no "primary topic". I provided more recent sources supporting the statement in the link above, from the May discussion; I haven't looked for more since then.

2) Unilaterally adding material is the normal way Wikipedia operates. The sentence has been there for years, so a strong consensus to change/remove/move it is required; that hasn't appeared in previous discussions.

3) I'd prefer not to to discuss this yet again in September, which is what is likely if there's a consensus against it but the sentence then gets moved to another para. I wouldn't mind having a Donald Trump-style very brief opening para of the most neutral statement of facts about Johnson's job(s), then having the rest of what is now para 1 as para 2. EddieHugh (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

1) Article content is included relative to its importance to the subject, per e.g. WP:WEIGHT, WP:LEAD. There is no doubt that his roles in the most recent years, now as Prime Minister, are far more important than anything he did before that. People outside the UK had rarely heard of him just a few years ago; now he's a figure of international prominence (articles are written from an international perspective, not just from a local perspective).

2) A consensus is required to include the content, not the other way round. The fact that it wasn't immediately removed when it was first added, when Johnson was a comparatively obscure figure with no position in national politics and no international prominence is irrelevant. He became PM this year, and more editors started paying attention to the article. Recent discussions have far more weight than years-old discussions, but there haven't even been any years-old discussions that supported the inclusion of the content in the first place, so the removal of this material until a consensus emerges to include it is a no-brainer. The very same editor is quick to remove additions by all other editors that he, and he alone, personally disagrees with, claiming that his personal approval on the talk page is needed for inclusion of any and all content, before it is included in the article. The idea that a solid majority on the talk page against his unilateral additions isn't enough because he added it "years ago" without discussion and when the subject was comparatively obscure and few people paid much attention to the article, is preposterous. --Tataral (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

No; it's a standard principle that consensus is established by the long-standing presence (or absence) of material in an article and that a change of consensus is required to alter its presence/absence, if challenged. It's also a policy: "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"... "commonly" shows that it's not 100%, but it's the norm. EddieHugh (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It's the the norm but not policy. WP:ONUS states "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." which avoids "the cows belong to whoever touched them last"-style situations. Either way, we can leave the question aside until RfC's closer to over. Speaking of which, should I ping the editors from prior discussions? ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 12:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this question will now be decided by this RfC. But it's also worth mentioning the difference between material that has been included for a long time in a well-developed, stable article on a subject whose status hasn't drastically changed (e.g. material that became part of Obama's article during his presidency), as opposed to an article on a subject who has become a thousand times more notable after the material was added, with major development of the article needed to reflect his new status as UK Prime Minister and a global figure, and political views he wasn't associated with before but that he is now known for globally.

For our purposes it's a almost a new article, much like the period when Trump went from being a reality TV figure to President. The editors who started editing the Trump article around 2015–2016 were vastly more numerous and people with different interests, especially people interested in national-level U.S. and international politics who hadn't paid much attention to the article on Trump the reality TV figure five years before. I don't think there were any examples of dubious, outdated and/or low-quality material added years previously that was retained only because it had been in the article for some time; the entire lead, every single comma, has been written after he became a candidate for President and President, and every comma extensively debated, with a consensus for inclusion required. --Tataral (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

My interpretation of the apparent contradiction between the two policies – NOCON and ONUS – is that the former is more for existing content ("retaining the version of the article") and the latter is more for proposed/recently added content ("achieve consensus for inclusion", not retention). In this instance, then, NOCON is the relevant one.

Going back to the essentials, it's content based on sources that matters, regardless of our opinions of how important the subject is or of how the subject's life has changed. EddieHugh (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• No, it is grossly undue to mention it in the article. I don't agree with the argument that because it has been there a long time. Johnson's public statements have changed significantly since this was introduced in the lead, as well have analyses of his place on the political spectrum. Pretty much all of the citations in the article which say Johnson is a "social liberal" are from 2006–2012, referring to his time as MP for Henley or London mayor (mostly the latter). That's very different to what the sources say about him during the Brexit campaign, or his time as Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister. If the information must stay in the lead, then it should indicate that he was considered socially liberal as Mayor of London, for example. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I had to repeat myself the last time this was discussed and here I am again. Newer sources for the same thing are in a link above. Here's another, from The Washington Post: "Johnson's policy record and disposition is much closer to David Cameron-style social liberalism than to Trump or May"... "Johnson's instincts, in contrast, are liberal and permissive. He's an optimist, pro-free trade and pro-immigration"... "his socially liberal record". It was published last month.

I'm trying to avoid adding new material to articles (because of the WP:FRAMGATE debacle), but I've now added to the article a very brief summary of three of the 2019 sources that I mentioned earlier. EddieHugh (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• No. Such coverage does exist, and it's worth mentioning in the body where it can be given more context, but it's not really what he's notable for and isn't at all a commonly-agreed-on descriptor for his politics - I'd describe it more as a certain sort of thinkpiece about him that tends to get written in a certain sort of publication or opinion-piece. (Notably, the recent example above is an opinion piece.) It's something that some opinion-page and thinkpiece writersthink about him - often slightly contrarian ones, comparable to the "Donald the Dove / Hillary the Hawk" thinkpiece from a while back - so it's something we could mention in a section on his reputation or reception, but it's not generally used as a neutral descriptor of his politics in sources we can use for statements of fact. --Aquillion (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Apologies if I'm getting a tad off topic here, but one thing I think that needs stressing is that Euroscepticism and liberalism are not antithetical. It is perfectly possible for someone to be both a Eurosceptic and a liberal (including a liberal conservative, as Johnson appears to be). There seems to be an underlying premise among some of the editors saying "No" here that the idea of Johnson being liberal is ridiculous or just plain wrong - despite what the Reliable Sources say. I believe that this stems from the premise that anyone who is a firm Eurosceptic cannot be liberal. That, however, is a misconception. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to be a European social liberal and be a Eurosceptic? Well, anything is possible in theory, but it's not very common. The only major liberal party in the UK is the most pro-EU party in the country and strongly opposes everything associated with Euroscepticism. The same is the case in all other European countries that I know of, whether in Central and Eastern Europe or in Western Europe, where (social) liberalism is commonly associated with pro-Europeanism and progressive views. The term Eurosceptic is mostly associated with illiberal populism and parties on the political fringes in Europe, and especially nationalist, right-wing populism. In general the idea of a European social liberal who is a Eurosceptic is pretty fringe. Johnson is the leader of a party that left the mainstream conservatives years ago to join parties like Law and Justice, the True Finns, the Danish People's Party and other hard-right parties. Hardly social liberals, any of them.
  • The issue here, however, isn't just about his Euroscepticism. It's about the views he is known for advocating today, which includes "racist and homophobic language" and "pandering to the far right" as this article puts it, and especially his close association with Donald Trump. Few sources regard such views as "socially liberal".
  • Has he advocated some views that were socially liberal in the past? Maybe. Should they be mentioned in an appropriate context that discusses his views and activities perhaps a decade ago? Quite possibly. Should "social liberal" be included, as the only description of his views, in the first paragraph of the lead (that is meant to summarise the most important, key points relative to the importance of the material) of the article on a politician now most commonly known for advocating nationalism, right-wing populism, his association with Donald Trump, "racist language" and "pandering to the far right"? Absolutely not. --Tataral (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
    • While I don't have any major disagreements with most of your points, I think that you may be making some generalisations based on continental European politics (or at least, some continental European politics) that do not fit the British situation so well. Your suggestion that "The term Eurosceptic is mostly associated with illiberal populism and parties on the political fringes in Europe, and especially nationalist, right-wing populism" doesn't really ring true for Britain, where Euroscepticism has always had a role to play in mainstream politics of both left and right. The Labour Party were for instance for many decades committed to a fairly Eurosceptic position, and the Conservatives similarly have had a strong Eurosceptic contingent since the early 1990s at least - hell, there are even Eurosceptics in the Liberal Democrats (although they were always a minority there and are pretty quiet these days)! Simply put, in Britain, Euroscepticism has never been a fringe political position, as it has been in certain other parts of Europe. That's partly why Euroscepticism has proven triumphant in the UK and not (thus far) elsewhere.
    • I also think that it's misleading to state that Johnson is "now most commonly known for advocating nationalism, right-wing populism, his association with Donald Trump, "racist language" and "pandering to the far right"". That's a statement I'd expect from an op-ed in a centre-left or progressive publication, but I don't actually think is particularly true. The racist and homophobic language that Johnson used, for instance, appeared in the 1990s, a decade or so before he ever became London Mayor, let alone PM. This being the case, I have concerns that the push to remove references to Johnson's liberalism is (on perhaps an unconscious level) motivated by opposition to him (and perhaps fear of Brexit) and a desire to distance him from those who may self-identify as "liberals". I don't think it's motivated (or supported) by Wikipedia policy given that we have a plethora of Reliable Sources (including those from 2019) explicitly describing Johnson as a supporter of socially liberal policies. Those are all cited in the article already. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
      • It's not enough to have some sources that describe him as "a supporter of socially liberal policies" to prominently make that claim, in Wikipedia's voice, as the undisputed truth, as the only description of his policies in the first paragraph of the lead. It's a matter of WP:WEIGHT. We have tons of sources that describe Johnson in very different terms than "socially liberal" too, including many sources describing him as a right-wing populist or worse; in fact the description of him as primarily a right-wing populist is so widespread that Johnson went on a crusade against it[1] and he is mentioned as one of the main British examples in our own article on right-wing populism
      • Sources claiming that he is primarily, in 2019, a social liberal need to be weighed against all those other sources to find the appropriate balance for the article as a whole, for the lead as a whole, and for the first paragraph of the lead that summarises the most important information about him. For instance, how common is the description of Johnson in 2019/as PM as "socially liberal" as compared to the description as a "right-wing populist"?
      • Quite frankly I've never seen any descriptions of him as socially liberal at all outside of this Wikipedia article, and it appears to be a pretty fringe opinion, especially with reference to Johnson the PM/Johnson in 2019.
      • The debate regarding Johnson and his right-wing and Trumpian views is global, with commentators and scholars in many other countries weighing in and describing people like him, or Geert Wilders, or Marine Le Pen. We need to take those views into account, not only views of right-wing commentators in the UK who are mostly members of his own party. This is what we do in the articles on other comparable politicians; for instance Geert Wilders has a long debate on how is viewed and treated in for example the UK. --Tataral (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Expressing views supported by evidence here is good, but misrepresenting sources and existing content isn't. The Newsweek article you link to doesn't describe "a crusade" by Johnson, it describes him giving a single answer to a single question: "Johnson was asked by the moderator if he gets frustrated by the characterization of himself as 'some sort of right-wing populist' when 'particularly on social issues, you're about as liberal as you can get?'" The Wikipedia article you linked to has one sentence on him – "Boris Johnson has been described as expressing right-wing populist views during the successful Vote Leave campaign" – which could be used for lots of people. The 2019 sources reporting on Johnson's liberal tendencies are The Guardian (left wing, UK), The Washington Post (largely left of centre, US) and Reuters (neutral, international): far from the "right-wing commentators in the UK who are mostly members of his own party" that you allege.

I agree that a balance needs to be found, but presenting exaggerated claims while asking for balance doesn't help move the discussion forward. EddieHugh (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: The 2019 sources reporting on Johnson's liberal tendencies are The Guardian (left wing, UK). What the Guardian opinion says is that "there’s a lot of optimistic chatter about how Johnson is a social liberal at heart (true) who never really meant all that populist stuff deep down (probably true) and will therefore pivot away from hard Brexit if he wins (and that’s where all bets are off)". The whole content of the Guardian article is about how BJ has actually become toxic to many "moderate" tories, any Guardian endorsement of BJ's social liberalism is about as grudging as one could possibly get. Pincrete (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It is The Guardian! The fact that the writer states "Johnson is a social liberal at heart (true)" in a critical (of course, it is The Guardian) article is revealing: it's the one positive thing that the left-wing/liberal publication notes about him. EddieHugh (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to butt in too much but there seems to be a lot of back and forth about Johnson's opinions and whether he is a social liberal "at heart". Although obviously not unconnected, it's ultimately a different question from whether he is "associated with" socially liberal policies. Whatever qualifications people may want to add, the first is at least currently supported by the body while the second isn't. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 21:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Precisely.Pincrete (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not butting in; it's a valid distinction. However, the sources support both. The LSE one lists some of his liberal policies, as does Hill in The Guardian, as do The Washington Post and Reuters (one for the last). Almost all of the rest have some sort of paywall/block on my browser, so I can't read them in full (and I don't have the book). Sources giving examples of his liberal policies seems to me to justify the summary that he has been associated with such policies. EddieHugh (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

From today's Guardian editorial "When it suits him, Mr Johnson presents himself as a social and economic liberal in the “one nation” Tory tradition. Maybe he even believes it. But his Brexit stance has alienated the voters who would be attracted to such a candidate". Can we now kill any idea that the Gdn views BJ as a liberal, except as being part of an image, or maybe historically? Pincrete (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no 'Guardian view' as such, but no, based on that sentence or article, we can't conclude anything about how The Guardian sees Johnson's policies, except the idea that his Brexit stance may alienate liberal-leaning voters. It's safer to go with what the sources state, instead of trying to read between the lines. EddieHugh (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

We can conclude that nobody at the Gdn thinks that he is "associated with" socially liberal policies - which is anyhow a silly thing to say of anyone. Does it means that he advocates for liberal policies or that he rigourously opposes them? Of course there isn't a single monolithic, official, Gdn/BBC/Telegraph view of anyone, but an editorial is the nearest thing.Pincrete (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• No, UNDUE, per ReconditeRodent, Tataral and Aquillion. I don't begrudge that the guy is liberal on some social issues but ....it's hardly what he's known for. This social liberalism is not noteworthy in a parliament in which opposition to gay marriage (for example), was distinctly marginal. I would argue that he was better known as a TV satirist and writer of humourous articles, than he was for endorsing/espousing ANY national policies or political positions prior to campaigning for Brexit. Perhaps his "ideological journey" deserves to be in the body, but emphatically not this content in the opening para.Pincrete (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• No - remove this. Certainly not what he is associated with now. His political positions are/have varied over the years - the reader can go to the 'political positions' section if they wish to see this. JLo-Watson (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment This article "The 10 ages of Boris Johnson: a guide to his road to power" is relevant to this discussion. It was written by Johnson's biographer, Sonia Purnell whose 2011 book is cited extensively in the article. Red Boris – pro-cycling, pro-Europe, pro-immigration, anti-Trump – had won London but by the end of his second term the old, bluer version of Boris was back. Pandering to the new rightward swing of the Conservative party, Johnson positioned himself to attack by standing for parliament again a year before he was due to leave City Hall. It seems to me that most of the sources relating to his liberal stance are referring to his time as London mayor, but at present, nobody is sure of his ideological position. The sources added to support him continuing to be a liberal in 2019 [2] [3] are opinion pieces so of less use than Purnell. The Washington Post one also says: Yes, Johnson takes traditional conservative positions on many issues. He is partial to a tax cut, skeptical about new economic regulation and libertarian on the nanny state. This itself marks a sharp break from May, who continually distanced herself from Thatcherism. Meanwhile the Guardian says there’s a lot of optimistic chatter about how Johnson is a social liberal at heart (true) i.e. he may be personally, but those are not the policies he is enacting as PM. The simplest way to deal with this IMO, is to just add "During his time as London mayor ..." to the lead. SmartSE (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In any event material on his time as London mayor wouldn't belong in the first paragraph of the lead (which doesn't include any discussion of his policies as PM). We already have a sentence that starts with "During his first term as Mayor of London" in the third paragraph of the lead, where material on his ideological stance at that time would naturally belong. However, it seems to me that closer analysis of the sources has cast doubt on the blanket claim that he was a social liberal, and that a more complex discussion of what may be a liberal "image" at a certain point would be better suited for the body rather than the lead; certainly it's a pretty obscure aspect of his biography compared to what he is actually known for globally. We would have to discuss this further at a later time since this RfC is only about the inclusion of this specific sentence in the first paragraph of the lead. --Tataral (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Where in that article does Purnell (far from a neutral commentator, see here) provide evidence instead of opinion? The liberal policy vs liberal image matter in the sources was answered above (the sources support both). EddieHugh (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Cautionary note, conservative, especially qualified by 'traditional' has somewhat different resonances in the UK and US. Until very recently, almost all UK conservatives were way to the left of Obama on matters like health, education and welfare provision. Churchill was a great believer in minimum wages being set by the state for each profession for example. One Nation conservatives were the most 'generous' (and least ideologically uniform) of a spread that was already far to the left of US consevatives.Pincrete (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• No His political ideology has shifted over the years, and he is best known internationally for being the Prime Minister of the UK. While as PM, he has removed the whip from and deselected a large number of MPs, most of whom were "One Nation Conservatives". The vast majority of 'sources' that judge Johnson's premiership as being associated with socially and economically liberal policies are opinion pieces. The fact that there is such a debate to be had over such a contentious sentence indicates that WP:NPOV is not being adhered to by its prominent inclusion at the very start of the article. theeternalstars (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: We have debated this for two weeks now and it's time to move ahead. There seems to be almost unanimous consensus that the sentence doesn't belong in the first paragraph. Whether it belongs somewhere else, and in what context, is something we will have to discuss in a separate discussion. Given how the perception of Johnson has evolved recently, with him expelling the remaining moderate conservatives from his party, or moderate conservatives leaving and accusing him of an "assault on democracy"[4], a thorough discussion of exactly how we describe his political stance as Prime Minister in the body and lead is urgently needed anyway; there hasn't been much (or any, really) development of this aspect of the article since he became PM, so it largely reflects an outdated view of Johnson from when he was a local politician in London and media figure. --Tataral (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I would like to further add that the current hidden text (DO NOT REMOVE THIS LONGSTANDING PARAGRAPH WITHOUT GAINING CONSENSUS ON TALK PAGE; THE INFORMATION IT CONTAINS IS FULLY SOURCED IN ARTICLE BODY.), while sounding terse and authoritative, also does not follow WP:HIDDEN. While "hiding a portion of the text that has been temporarily removed while consensus is pending" is appropriate, "telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing guideline or policy against that edit" is not. The MoS continues: "When it is a mere local consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit. Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to try to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would conflict with an existing consensus." In light of all this, I would strongly recommend removing the hidden text and temporarily hiding the disputed sentence while a consensus is being reached. theeternalstars (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree, the hidden comment has been edit-warred into the article by a single editor and represents the opinion of a single editor, and not any consensus on this talk page, and should have been removed a long time ago. If anything, there is a consensus against the entire sentence on this talk page in this and previous discussions. --Tataral (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: The article has been amended for now to hide the sentence that is under discussion, and direct editors to the RfC. This is in line with guidelines regarding hidden text (WP:HIDDEN) and invisible comments (MOS:COMMENT). theeternalstars (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: The sentence has been reverted by User:EddieHugh. I would like to point them towards WP:NOCONSENSUS which states that "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". I would also gently suggest that it would be more appropriate to give notice of changes made (especially those involving an active RfC) in the Talk page rather than in the edit history. theeternalstars (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I know all about NOCON; I linked to it and discussed it above. I wouldn't say that describing a living person as "associated with both economically and socially liberal policies" is a 'contentious matter'. It's no more contentious than any other statement about a politician's policies and actions. The bar for 'contentious' is higher than that, surely. This is for now immaterial, because (as in my edit summary) the norm is to keep content visible while it is under discussion, if it has been in the article for a long time (this has been in for >3 years). Perhaps I should have commented here, too – agreed. EddieHugh (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Boris is known for having a liberal bent and the newspapers have noted this fact. it has set him apart from many others in the Tory party! NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk)

• No - his ideological position as PM is not liberal - in particular, see his positions on crime (tougher sentencing, extending stop and search powers, appointing Priti Patel as Home Sec), expelling MPs from his party, and strongman governance style (as reported in the FT and Economist). His time as Mayor of London at times reflected an authoritarian bent as well (ie stance on stop and search powers). I accept that euroscepticism isn't necessarily illiberal. However, stretching the limits of the constitution and potentially undermining the rule of law in order to manoeuvre towards a no deal Brexit is not in keeping with liberalism. (87.112.179.61) 23;59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree that the sentence should be removed until this RfC has concluded (which seems to be taking a while, despite a near-unanimous consensus to remove the sentence). There is, even before the RfC, a near-consensus that the sentence is improper, wrong and biased. The term that most frequently comes up when sources discuss Johnson the PM is "authoritarian"[5][6], not "socially liberal". A more adequate sentence describing the stance he is in fact associated with in his capacity as Prime Minister by reliable sources in the UK and around the world would be e.g. (note: merely an example, not a complete and fully formatted proposal for inclusion at this time):

"As Prime Minister Johnson has been associated with policies widely described as authoritarian by many commentators, including a suspension of parliament that was ruled to be illegal and aimed at stymying parliament.[7]"

--Tataral (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You are still in a hurry to shut down discussion. And removing established material during an RfC is against normal procedure, as described above. And your first source (Sky) doesn't describe Johnson as "authoritarian"; it quotes a member of the public asking Johnson about being authoritarian. And the AlJazeera source doesn't describe him as "authoritarian" either; it describes a judicial decision which is being appealed against. In a repetition of my 29 August post here, I ask that you be more careful in summarising both the sources you introduce and the discussion to date. EddieHugh (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

And I ask that you do not misrepresent comments. At no point have I said anything about AJ describing him as authoritarian as the source was only meant as an example of a source discussing the ruling against his suspension of parliament. The rest of your comment is just hairsplitting which might have been valid points if these were sources I had introduced in the article rather than just two examples of sources mentioned informally here on the talk page in a discussion of the public discourse regarding the perception of Johnson. I didn't propose a specific source for inclusion in the article that describes his policies as authoritarian because that is outside the scope of this discussion anyway. I did not indicate that Sky News had described him as authoritarian but included the source that stated that he "denies he's leading 'authoritarian regime'" as one example of the discourse regarding him.

I'm not in a hurry to shut down discussion; we've had a thorough discussion over three weeks and have a clear consensus that the sentence should be removed (not to mention the previous discussion of this issue), and several editors also feel we should remove the sentence for the rest of the duration of the RfC. --Tataral (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Your proposed addition states "Johnson has been associated with policies widely described as authoritarian by many commentators" and the only source is the AJ one. That's wrong. If there's one source for a sentence, then everything in that sentence should be in the source given. My pointing out that things claimed to be in a source are not, in fact, in that source isn't hairsplitting; it's pointing out a failure to adhere to basic sourcing requirements. An assertion such as "The term that most frequently comes up when sources discuss Johnson the PM is 'authoritarian'" requires evidence; even taking the weaker position of 'sources mentioning something about a discourse' (instead of 'stating that he is authoritarian or associated with such policies'), the evidence is lacking. EddieHugh (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand that you – given that your position hasn't received any support here – feel it's opportune to misrepresent my comments and to pretend that I've made a formal proposal for inclusion of a different text. I haven't done that. This discussion is about the inclusion of a specific sentence in the first paragraph of the lead; anything else will have to be discussed separately, in a new discussion. I've merely mentioned an incomplete and unfinished (draft of an) example of what I believe would be a more suitable sentence, but that would of course have to be discussed, refined, properly sourced and formatted later on. I haven't formatted the sentence, incl with references, as I would if I had introduced it to the article, because it was merely mentioned informally as an example in this discussion, and because it is outside the scope of the RfC to make any determinations regarding other content such as the sentence in question. --Tataral (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll accept that it wasn't an official proposal, as that's what you now say. But, really, adding, days later, without an edit summary, "(note: merely an example, not a complete and fully formatted proposal for inclusion at this time)" to your original post, after saying that it wasn't an official proposal...! EddieHugh (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The fact that this was only meant as a tentative example and not a formal, complete proposal to change anything now based on this discussion alone was made clear in the original version by the use of "e.g.", and also by the context in which it appeared (a formal RfC on a different sentence). --Tataral (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• No, as this does not appear to be an accurate summary of the #Political views and ideology section. (Summoned by bot) – bradv🍁 05:25, 14 September 2019 (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.

Excessive capitalization

There is a perfectly sensible Wikipedia guideline, MOS:JOBTITLES, that says common nouns should not be capitalized. This is based on virtually every style guide out there (University of Oxford Style Guide, AP Stylebook, The Chicago Manual of Style, etc) and on academic usage. The University of Oxford Style Guide says: "Use capitals for titles prefixing names, but not for job descriptions." It then gives the following example: "The Right Honourable David Cameron MP is the current prime minister."
It is not true that the job position of prime minister is "standardly capitalized". The sources cited in this article and the most reputable British publications use the lower case "prime minister", including the BBC (e.g. Boris Johnson becomes the UK's new prime minister), The Guardian (e.g. Boris Johnson: a prime minister acting above the law), The Independent (e.g. How bad has Boris Johnson’s start as prime minister really been?, etc. Encyclopaedia Britannica does not capitalize it either.
So why should this job description be capitalized in this article? Surtsicna (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Typo

Under "Family":

1975, the mummified corpse of a woman was found in church in Basel. She was identified as Anna Catharina Bischoff and turned out to be an anchester of Boris Johnson

'ancester' should be 'ancestor' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.30.25.168 (talk • contribs)

 Done. El_C 10:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

"Boris J" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Boris J. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

"Boris (prime minister)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Boris (prime minister). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Socially something (again)

So what are we going to put in the lead about his (il?)liberal stances and policies? The RfC was on having a sentence in the opening para; having been reverted, I'm not going to edit war on putting something similar in later in the lead. The article has far more on Johnson's policies and political views than it has on "using racist, sexist and homophobic language", but only the latter is now in the lead. That's not representative. We need something (neutral) on his policies and views, or to cut the last para of the lead, if the lead is to be a fair summary of the body. Which is preferred? EddieHugh (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Good point in principle. We should add something about his views and policies, if we can ever discover what they are - in complete seriousness. Maybe the Queen's Speech? Errantius (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

That's fair. I'd put a something about a leftward or centrist slant during his time as mayor, followed by a line about his rightward shift since 2016 and as PM, as a number of commenters in the RfC argued for. (My main issue with saying "socially liberal" in this context is just that it's insufficiently broad and so paints social liberalism as a particular focus.) Maybe something vaguely like, "Johnson's ideological position has shifted over the course of his career, with commentators noting a leftward, liberal slant during his time as Mayor of London, followed by a return to the right towards the end of his second term." I think it's reasonable to focus on the journey here, since we already name plenty of specific policies earlier on in the intro. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 14:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

A sentence that is truly neutral on Johnson's policies is something that is exceptionally difficult to achieve: it is far more difficult to summarise the views of a politician whose slants and policies have been so amorphous than it is to note a pretty consistent track record of offensive language. I think if it can be achieved, a neutral description of his viewpoints and policies would be welcome. Regardless, the now-removed sentence was wildly inappropriate to be displayed so prominently for a prime minister who relies politically on eroding public trust in parliament and the independent judiciary theeternalstars (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Legal section?

Given the number of past and current/ongoing legal challenges and other issues Mr Johnson has faced, both privately and officially, should we add a separate section summarising at least the more notable ones? DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

They are of such a variety—off the top of my head, Garden Bridge, misconduct in public office, prorogation and (currently) the Hacker House affair—that I'm not sure anything would be gained by bringing them together. Errantius (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Errantius: I cannot, at this time, see the value in bringing these together into one section. They are of different natures and characters. Bondegezou (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Number of children in infobox - possible WP:BLP?

I'm not going to touch this article with a bargepole, but the infobox saying that Johnson has "5 or 6" children looks to me to fail WP:BLP, at least with the current sourcing. I don't know if Metro is verboten on Wikipedia like its stablemate the Daily Mail, but I definitely class it alongside the Mirror as something that should be avoided if the information is not corroborated in other sources.

Johnson does have four children with his second wife, and a judge has stated that a fifth is his from an affair. Then the Metro source says "During this time, there were claims that he also had a sixth child". Now, I don't know the ins and outs of this case, but the wording of the reference does not strike me with confidence that a) These claims are proven, b) these claims are credible, c) these claims are still ongoing (note the use of past tense in the reference).

Having a lovechild is not a crime, but I think that we should apply the same standard - if someone has been proven by a court to have a child, it's proven; if it's just a "claim", it's not proven.

In short: unless there's a more definitive source, the box should say Johnson has five children. Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

So the background to this is that there was a court case meaning the media could print about his child conceived outside of wedlock. In this deliberation the court said "this is the second time that he has (or may have) caused a woman who was not his wife to become pregnant". Some of the media have extrapolated that means he also has a sixth child. This though may refer to the pregnancy terminated by another affair with Petronella Wyatt. Either way, we know he has at least 5, but there has never been any comment on him, or anyone close to him on how many he has (avoiding it when asked). I don't think we can definitely say has has just 5 children (as there are no RS for this), so the only sort of options are:

• 5 (known)
• At least 5
• 5 or 6
• etc, etc

Feel free to suggest an alternative, but there are no RS's that he has had only 5

Jopal22 (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Tangentially, I think we need another "This article has been mentioned by a media organization" box as Wikipedia's "5 or 6" text was referenced by The Mash Report this week! Bondegezou (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Can't reach page for Jennifer Arcuri

Search for Jennifer Arcuri jumps me to Boris Johnson. IMDB seems to consider Jennifer Arcuri sufficiently notable to warrant a page of their own on her. I can't even tell whether wp has a page for her or not, since I can't get there from here. If she does have a wp article, it's effectively inaccessible to civilians. If there's no page for her, then a de-confusing page that states she's not significant enough to deserve a page so we're going to BJ's page would save a lot of time and bewilderment for those of us who don't plan to become editors and don't want to wander through a wilderness of detailed wp-specific explanations to find out what's up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:780:B88:54AD:E041:91FC:8018 (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

There is not a Wikipedia page on her. See Boris_Johnson#Second_term:_2012–2016 I have amended the redirect to take people to this section. Jontel (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Jennifer Arcuri

I've added a paragraph about the unfolding Jennifer Arcuri matter under the mayoralty second term section, as that's when the events took place. However, the reporting and furore are taking place now. So, where's best to cover this? There or under Premiership? Bondegezou (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The question arising for me is "who is Jennifer Arcuri"? Maybe she has done something interesting and deserves her own wiki entry, since hers is the name folks will google if they pick up on these reports. Anything interesting / relevant about her placed in the article on Mr. Johnston is likely to be lost in the sheer volume of ... um ... other stuff about his policies, priorities and (?mis)deeds. Regards Charles01 (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It is probably better to do as you did, as that timing is definite and there may be reporting of its implications for an extended period. I don't know if there is a general rule. Jontel (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2019

There is a typo, Setpember rather than September in the caption for the photo of Boris and Jean-Claude. 86.133.65.122 (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've fixed it. SmartSE (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Should personal relationships be dual sited: if not, where should they go?

Johnson's public and personal life seem regularly intertwined, in that his affairs seem to have professional implications. We need to decide how to treat this. His affair with Helen McIntyre is in both the First term 2008-2012 and Personal life sections. His marriages are also covered in both the chronological timeline and the Personal life section. However, his affair with Petronella Wyatt is in the Becoming an MP section but not in the Personal life section and the alleged affair with Jennifer Arcuri is in the Second term 2012-2016 section but not in the Personal life section. I sought to add them also to Personal life but this was reverted by User:DeFacto as they are already in the article. There are two issues here. One is that we should treat this consistently and we are not doing so currently. The second is that his affairs, when they result in him losing his job or an official investigation, are part of his career path but are also part of his personal life. By omitting them from Personal life we are presenting a partial picture of this aspect of his life. The length of the article makes this issue worse, as it is easy to miss brief elements. How should we treat these aspects? Jontel (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jontel: there is never an excuse for having identical paragraphs copied and pasted into two different sections. There might be a case for referring to the same event in two different sections if it is contextualised appropriately in each of those sections. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

One approach could be to report the professional consequences in the career sections and the personal consequences - children etc. in the personal life section. I'm happy to do that if there is consensus for it. Jontel (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Self-coup#Boris Johnson

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Self-coup#Boris Johnson. Has the UK suffered a coup d'etat? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Numbering Premierships

This is a suggestion for this and all pages for British Prime Ministers. You should number the Prime Minsters like the US Presidents, Boris Johnson for instance should be the “77th Prime Minister of the United Kingdom”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:1425:8B00:4851:BFCB:6EAC:4324 (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

That would be original research. Why the US system and not some other? Numbers just aren't used and serve no purpose. Timrollpickering (Talk) 22:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what giving the number would actually add in terms of interest to the reader. Perhaps the number could appear in the infobox, but I can't see it being useful in the opening sentences. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Unlike the US, the office of Prime Minister is not clearly defined and the actual country keeps changing. For example, the first prime minister was probably Robert Walpole, but he did not officially hold the title. Another first prime minister was Pitt the younger, while yet another first prime minister - of the current UK - was probably Bonar Law as recently as 1922. There's a number of other unanswered questions, such as the Earl of Bath. This fluidity is one of the reasons no one uses numbering for UK prime ministers, and numerous previous discussions here on Wikipedia have concluded that we follow this convention. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Addition of Boris Johnson Sidebar to Article

There is a clear consensus not to add {{Boris Johnson sidebar}} to the article.

Cunard (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2019 (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.

---

I propose the addition of the sidebar (on the right) to this Article. It's a helpful and useful template which various other Articles use. It would also maintain consistency with previous UK leaders, (David Cameron, Theresa May). It also provides links to other articles and information quickly which may be of use to the reader if they are researching UK Politics. Theprussian (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Votes

• Oppose. First, it is totally unnecessary; there is already a Boris Johnson navbox at the bottom of the article, and there is no need for both. Second, it causes aesthetic problems in the structure of the article by pushing a quotebox (in the "Eton and Oxford: 1977–1987" sub-section) out of place while clogging up the right-hand side of the page. Third, there is a general dislike of sidebars when you get to the FA level (one doesn't find them on FA-rated political biography articles like Nelson Mandela and Vladimir Lenin for instance), in large part because they can be unsightly. All in all, there is no good reason to add it into the article, and several good reasons for not including it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - (Summoned by bot) Agree with Midnightblueowl and quite frankly, it will be visually unappealing and mess up the page's layout. Meatsgains^(talk) 17:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose If I had my way, I would dispense with all of the flowery "series about X person" sidebars. They introduce clutter, and often direct people to article that are in terrible shape and barely relevant. Since I cannot have that, I will content myself with opposing them in situations where they are obviously redundant, such as this one. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Midnightblueowl. Errantius (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose unless you can make a case that the navbox at the bottom cannot fulfil the purpose. Jontel (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons stated by Midnightblueowl. Mgasparin (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Oppose as unnecessary, per above. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 09:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

---

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.

Request to change the main picture

For a while the picture was the one shown right. The person who reverted it made the valid point that there was no concensus for the change, but was mistaken in saying it is Johnson's "official" photo as is consistent with previous PMs (it's an older one). The picture to the right is more recent, and actually shows a picture of Johnson as prime minister (as opposed to the current one which was actually taken before); it's of a similar quality and is still public domain. SnoopingAsUsual (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

both are good images, but I think the reverted one would be the right one to use. i find it strange that there has yet to be an official portrait of johnson as PM, theresa may got an image a month after she became PM. not related to the subject anymore but still strange Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say it was his official PM image; I said it was 'official portrait'. Yes, it's two years old, but it is still a better pic than the one on the right in my opinion. Unfortunately, his office is taking a lot longer than they should for a current official portrait, but the one I reverted to is used on the website... Corky 17:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• This image shown on the right should be in the infobox as it is more recent as opposed to the other one.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Wreathgate

Is the Remembrance Sunday story too trivial to mention: The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, BBC? Too bad he set off too early and then laid his wreath upside down. I'm sure no-one noticed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The BBC seems to have given a satisfactory explanation. Errantius (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Post-nominal Hon FRIBA

As per this page, RIBA uses a space. However Template:post-nominals doesn't allow one (the post-nom does not display). Is there any easy way around this? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, be bold and remove it from the lead, which I have now done! Edwardx (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Ooh, a bold move. His only honour, bless. And the infobox? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, infobox fixed too. I cannot recall anyone else who gets honorary fellowships in the lead or infobox. Edwardx (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Poor Bo-Jo. He now seems so denuded. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

see Frank Pick. He's an example.--DavidCane (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization situation

I'm going to assume, that if it's going to be prime minister in this article's intro. Then, it will be so, in all the other British prime minister article intros. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I don't care about the capitalisation. I only care that you mixed up a change to capitalisation and a substantial - and apparently controversial (see talk page) - change to the infobox. Given how many times the latter change had been reverted in the previous few days, it would have been sensible to split your own proposed changes in two or at least mention that you were making it. › Mortee _talk 22:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, this might have come across as a bit snappy, in which case I want to apologise. I wasn't in the best of moods. I agree with your point about consistency. Personally I'd lean slightly towards capitalising "Prime Minister" at least. Our article Member of Parliament (United Kingdom) currently capitalises that term, too. I'm less sure about e.g. "President of the Oxford Union". It's not a big issue for me, so I'm happy with whatever editors decide to go for and don't plan on making any edits myself. › Mortee _talk 19:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

No probs. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I don’t understand what the problem is here. This is a well established rule. If you’re referring to the office it’s lowercase [prime minister of the UK]. If you’re referring to an individual who is holding (or has had) that position it’s capitalised [Prime Minister, Harold Wilson]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlosTheBadger (talk • contribs) 23:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Including the number of children in the infobox

Reviving previous conversations about the number of children Johnson had. The omission of that information from the Infobox is an act of misinformation. The courts have already ruled that the paternity of his alleged children is: “a public interest matter which the electorate was entitled to know when considering [Mr Johnson’s] fitness for high public office”. If Johnson has refused to state how many children he has then the Infobox should record that number as unknown. 195.143.129.132 (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree Jopal22 (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing's hidden: the Personal life section of the article summarises what's known in adequately juicy detail. Lots of things are unknown about lots of people; the normal thing to do in such circumstances is to leave the pertinent infobox fields blank. I'd be happy to change position if there are plenty of examples of high-profile politicians with infoboxes that do contain, by consensus, "unknown" for any field. Are there any? EddieHugh (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Per EddieHugh nothing wrong with how it is, dont really need "unknown" in an infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

This information is now well-sourced and it is obviously relevant to include in the infobox how many children someone has - see Tony Blair, David Cameron etc. The fact that there is uncertainty about the number should not mean we just leave it out entirely. SmartSE (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I also think the information belongs here, as it does for anyone else on Wikipedia whom we know had children. The fact that the precise number is unknown, if anything, makes it more significant in this case—that's why the articles we now use as references were written, after all. We wouldn't include an "Unknown" line if we didn't know someone had children at all, but that doesn't apply here. › Mortee _talk 18:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Starting from List of children of the presidents of the United States, I looked at articles of US presidents who had a disputed number of children. In the infobox, only 'legitimate' children are included, without further note. The main text provides details of (speculation about) other children. See, for example, William Henry Harrison and John Tyler, both of which are Featured Articles, so are of greater value as reference points than the Cameron and Blair articles (neither of which has a disputed number of children). The David Lloyd George and Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston articles (not FAs) follow the same pattern. This highlights another infobox possibility, so I've reverted to the blank version, for now, pending consensus here. EddieHugh (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

EddieHugh noting your last edit. You again removed the "children" line of the infobox. Four different editors have now reverted you. The entry was long-standing before you made that change and the burden is on you to show consensus for a change (WP:BRD), which doesn't so far seem to be emerging from this discussion. In the meantime, it should be left in place. Repeatedly changing the article this way looks like edit-warring. If you want to propose alternative wording, of course you can do, but you can't just keep unilaterally deleting it.

If you seriously want to get into a debate about including only "legitimate" children, I'd argue that that's out-dated. Clear sources say that Johnson has at least five children, with good reason to think that total is uncertain. Whether he was married to their mothers at the time is not relevant. › Mortee _talk 21:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

If this information is unknown, then leave the field blank or omit it altogether. We don't put anything else or even 'unknown' for any of the other fields for which the value if unknown. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not unknown. The verifiable information is that he has at least five children. Reports vary beyond that, with decent sources suggesting at least six. An infobox value of "At least 5" covers that without being at all prurient. › Mortee _talk 22:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The actual number is unknown if we don't know whether it is 5 or 6 or more. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course the precise number is unknown. That's a big part of what makes the information significant. But it's not unknown if he has children or not. That's what some hypothetical "unknown" entry in the infobox would signal, and that's when we wouldn't include the line. Rather, we know he has at least five children and we don't know how many more. That's what the infobox should reflect. "At least five" is the simplest and most neutral way of doing that. › Mortee _talk 22:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whether the actual number is unknown is immaterial - let's just report what the sources say, which is 5 or 6. I'm not entirely sure about including "at least 5" without it being qualified further in the article, which I don't think it is at the moment. Given the coverage this has received over time though, we should discuss the fact that the actual number is unknown and that the "5 or 6" stems from a court ruling which stated the mayor’s “recklessness” in conducting extramarital affairs, which has resulted in two children being born. SmartSE (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I wrote this previously but it is in archives:

So the background to this is that there was a court case meaning the media could print about his child conceived outside of wedlock. In this deliberation the court said "this is the second time that he has (or may have) caused a woman who was not his wife to become pregnant". Some of the media have extrapolated that means he also has a sixth child. This though may refer to the pregnancy terminated by another affair with Petronella Wyatt.

So I am pretty sure the Telegraph was a bit sloppy saying "which has resulted in two children being born", as they have assumed pregnancies = children.Jopal22 (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Smartse: sure, cover the speculation in the main prose, but the infobox is for a summary of the known facts, and not a place for speculation or umming and ahhing. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the burden isn't on me. The burden is on whoever wants to include information to provide a reliable source and get consensus for inclusion. I removed material from a non-reliable source (Metro), which therefore should not have been in the article. Reliable sources have been provided, but there is as yet no consensus on what to include in the infobox. I therefore invite Mortee to self-revert to a blank field in the infobox, pending consensus; this will be in accordance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy: "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." EddieHugh (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I won't self-revert because what is in the infobox is, in my view, neutral and well-sourced as is required. I restored it with the significant change of including a reliable source so I don't believe it needs to be removed pending consensus per the bit of BLP you quoted. Rather, following WP:BRD, the children line should stay while this is discussed, as it is the status quo, having been there (in the form "5 or 6") for ages as far as I can see. I'm reassured in that approach by the fact that when you first reverted my re-inclusion, it was an administrator who restored it. However, if anyone removes it again it won't be me who puts it back; twice is enough for me.

On the question of phrasing, I think "At least 5" is better than "5 or 6" because all we know is that he has at least five children and has not confirmed any others. "5 or 6" suggests we have more information than we do. I'd be equally happy with "5+". I don't object strongly to the "5 or 6" phrasing, though. If anyone wants to switch back to that while the discussion is ongoing—it's what was in place previously—that's entirely fine. › Mortee _talk 17:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

My objection would be for it to remain blank, as everyone else with children has this field populated. So I would be okay with "At least 5" or simply "5" (assuming this is expanded in the body of the article). Lets face it, we don't know for sure how many children any male politician has, and we wouldn't increase the number just on speculation Jopal22 (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Including a reference isn't a significant change; it's a requirement! And BLP is policy; BRD is just an explanatory supplement. But anyway... let's try to resolve this without further reverting. I don't object to "5", based on Jopal22's final sentence, immediately above. EddieHugh (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Support "at least 5", considering that both the known number and the fact that there's questions over more is verifiable. U-Mos (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Support current presentation, as per U-Mos. MassiveEartha (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Support current presentation, as per U-Mos. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• The presentation should be the same as that given to other similar cases. The subject's predecessor as London Mayor seems to be a good example – see Ken Livingstone#Family for details. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Jennifer Arcuri

More detail on their relationship and investigations can go into Jennifer Arcuri, which is now a bio rather than a redirect. Fences&Windows 13:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitic language

This restore claims that Johnson has been accused of antisemitic language. Shouldn’t this be first fully sourced in the main body of the article, before it’s added to the lead section? Furthermore it’s sourced, via one single article in ‘’The Independent’’ to Johnson’s novel Seventy-Two Virgins, rather than any actual public or private statement? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Not only would it have to be fully sourced in the main body before being added to the lede, I also wonder if it is even necessary in the lede. The lede already states that Johnson has been accused of using racist language; anti-Semitism is, by most definitions, a variant of racism. Thus, the lede already provides coverage of this issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree, racism covers this already. The fictional book in question essentially makes racist statements / uses stereotypes about every minority one could think of, not just the Jewish people. Cowlibob (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

To my mind the essential fact here is that, although it may "include autobiographical aspects", Johnson's novel is a work of fiction. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

...and therefore beyond all criticism or accountability? What point are you trying to make? All sorts of antisemites have written antisemitic fiction, and Boris Johnson is just one of a long list of white nationalists who have done so. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that Seventy-Two Virgins is a novel, it's fiction, and that the antisemitic material was not delivered in his voice. The source that you restored here, says "The context of the passage regarding Jews is a part of the story in which all the countries of the world are made to vote country-by-country on whether the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay should be released." My point is that it's a story. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

In what world is Boris Johnson a white nationalist? Anyway, we're getting off topic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

What else do you call someone who advocates profiling and killing people based on their race? He's not advocating the killing of white Christians. Who do you think Boris Johnson envisions Britain to be a country for? He clearly thinks Britain is inherently white and Christian, and that above all other considerations, white Christian Brits must be protected against non-white, non-Christian people. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact remains that Boris Johnson has been accused several times of using racist language against Muslims and black people, so a separate section needs to be created for that, in the same way a section of antisemitism has been created for Jeremy Corbyn.Mikesiva (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

No objection. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that Muslims are not a race and as such Johnson cannot use racist language against them. He has used language that some Muslims have found offensive and that is the correct way of referring to it. In the same way that using offensive lanaguage to refer to the practices of Hindus or Christians might be offensive but it wouldn't be racist. Sue De Nimes (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2019

Please can you write that he won the 2019 GE on December 13 94.207.172.100 (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Brexit policy subsection of PM section

Apparently, he renegotiated the Withdrawal Agreement. But you’d never know it, reading this section, which has more about the prorogation than anything else, even though that subject belongs in another section, because, astonishingly, it makes absolutely no mention whatsoever of the renegotiation! How can this be? Boscaswell talk 09:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2019

change "This made Johnson the second prime minister to be born outside of the British Isles, after fellow Conservative Bonar Law." to "This made Johnson the second prime minister to be born outside of the British Isles, after fellow Conservative Bonar Law and the first not to be born on British territory." 148.77.10.25 (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@ElHef: here's a source 148.77.10.25 (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done with minor modifications. --Nemoschool (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

References

classes

I see the mention of upper-middle class a few times. I believe we are trying to throw off the class structure in the UK AND as there is no strict definition it is POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.47.99 (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe we are trying to throw off the class structure in the UK - this is irrelevant. This is an international encylopedia which is simply repeating what reliable, respected, secondry sources say about Johnson. it is POV - but a POV which is mentioned in reliable, respected, secondry sources, therefore it is not a violation of that policy.
SSSB (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

"He largely adhered to the Conservatives' party line but adopted a socially liberal stance on issues such as LGBT rights..."

This might be misleading to have on the first page. The subject of the article has always voted to the party line on LGBT rights, and the wording seems to imply that he has voted against party line on LGBT issues. Furthermore, when portraying a neutral image, it cannot portray somebody who has called gay men 'bum-boys' Glissando1234567890 (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC) as some sort of defender of LGBT rights.

More detail from the first source: he voted against most of his party on "Local Government Bill — Maintain Prohibition on Promotion of Homosexuality (Section 28)", so you're wrong in your first claim. On your second claim, using that sort of vocabulary is not incompatible with favouring gay rights. Ask some gay people.... EddieHugh (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't really see a reason for removal of this longstanding sentence from the lede. The information it imparts is sourced in the main body of the article, and reflects the important fact that, at least in the earlier part of his career, Johnson did vote in a more socially liberal direction than most of his fellow Conservative MPs. Removing it could also be construed as a politically partisan act to paint Johnson as a more overtly right-wing figure than he is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but this is not a major point - it almost implies that Johnson is a long-standing supporter of LGBT rights; he has made one vote for LGBT rights against party lines. This could be seen as partisan, portraying him as more liberal than he is. Whilst I would recommend this be removed, I understand your point. Could the word 'occasionally' be inserted? I'm confused by what you meant about asking gay people. Glissando1234567890 (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Commenting from the sidelines, from a quick look it seems to me that that detail ought to be in the relevant body section rather than in the WP:LEAD. Also, it ought to be supported vy a cited source rather than being asserted in Wikipedia's editorial voice. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The one example given was to disprove the claim that Johnson "has always voted to the party line on LGBT rights". "Ask some gay people" means that plenty of gay people use terms of the type mentioned when referring to themselves, without being anti-LGBT. There are multiple sources in the body stating that Johnson has been associated with social liberalism – the detail is already in the body and is summarised in the lead, as is the norm; the citations could all be added to the lead, but that's not normally how things are done. EddieHugh (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I see that it's important to keep the bit about a "socially liberal stance", but not about the LGBT bit. The evidence you presented was one vote; the statement implies numerous rebellious, pro-LGBT votes. He has taken a liberal stance on other issues, disobeying party lines. And when it actually comes to his views on homosexuality, consider the fact that he opposed gays in the military and believed that there was "truth" in Mugabe's views on gay men in parliament. My point is that Johnson does have liberal views, and has made liberal votes, but his record on LGBT matters (including in parliamentary votes) does little to support this. I think it would be sensible to remove the bit about LGBT rights from the lead, or insert the words "on one occasion". Otherwise, it may impartially portray Johnson as being more liberal than he actually is. (Not that I'm suggesting that any of the creators of this article have been impartial). Thanks! Glissando1234567890 (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Again: I found one instance because only one was required to contradict the original point. Changing it to "adopted a socially liberal stance" would lead to readers wondering what socially liberal things. Changing it to "adopted a socially liberal stance on issues such as LGBT rights" and cutting "in parliamentary votes" would be a broader summary of the sources that are in the body. Putting more examples in would reduce the focus on LGBT, but lengthen the sentence. (And it doesn't say that he has held these views for his whole life; it uses the past tense in a timeline paragraph that dates it to no earlier than 2001.) Changing to "adopted a more socially liberal stance on..." might help put it in some context. EddieHugh (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

We have the lede to summarise the main body of the article. In the article we have ciations which state that Johnson was generally socially liberal to LGBT rights among other Conservative MPs. For example: "Johnson moved in a more liberal direction on issues like climate change, LGBT rights and race relations" (Purnell 2011). Johnson's other socially liberal policies toward LGBT rights include:

• "In 2012, he banned London buses from displaying the adverts of Core Issues Trust, a Christian group, which compared homosexuality to an illness" (sourced in article)
• Johnson removed a ban on UK embassies flying the Gay pride rainbow flag as Foreign Secretary (Which I do not think is included in the article currently) [8] [9]
• Backed calls for same-sex marriage in 2010 [10]
• Voted for civil partnerships twice [11] [12]
• Voted to repeal a ban on the promotion of homosexuality in schools [13]

Hence it makes sense for sentence to be included in the lede to summarise this infomation.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2020

Add the category "Category:Alumni of the European Schools" to the bottom of this article. Boris attended the European School, Brussels I, as referenced in the article. 185.142.208.111 (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Numbering

Should we begin numbering Prime Ministers? I made the change but was blocked on the grounds that "this is not the US". However, many PMs (in NZ, Aus, Canada, Japan etc) are numbered, and in fact many news outlets refer to BJ as the 55th PM when he was elected. CityPride (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

This was (briefly discussed) in an earlier Talk Page conversation, which is archived here. If you wanted to get the ball rolling on it again, the best option might be an RfC? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

How do we start a RfC to get this ball rolling again? I strongly believe in numbering prime ministers for the following reasons:

1) The official GOV.UK site lists Boris as the 77th PM

2) Many PMs across other nations are listed by numbers

3) Mainstream media has referred to all recent PMs by their numbers

4) If you look on our own Wiki sites regarding UK PMs, it becomes clear that Walpole is considered the first PM (he is even listed as inaugural holder of the UK PM position); this falls in line with the official GOV.UK position. Our Wiki list and the official list match. CityPride (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Party Chairman

Hi there. I'm curious as to why the chairman of the party has been removed under the banner "Leader of the Conservative Party"...Theresa May and David Cameron have their chairmen listed on their profiles. Jeremy Corbyn and previous Labour leaders have both the chairman and party general secretaries listed. Wondering if it's a necessary piece of information on these politician's pages? Cubslakersfan (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2020

Remove the post-nominal 'PC' from Johnson's infobox. Only Peers of the Realm receive the post-nominal of 'PC'. Johnson's membership of the Privy Council is indicated by his style of 'Right Honourable'. 169.252.4.22 (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2020

born in the United States is a British 86.130.24.29 (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry, but it's not really clear what you mean. Could you try rephrasing your request? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC for Numbering Prime Ministers

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is clearly no consensus to enact the proposal. SmartSE (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

---

I propose that we begin to number Prime Ministers by tenure, and not by person, hence Boris Johnson would be the 77th PM (and not the 55th); for more information on the differences, please view List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by tenure start.

I propose this with the following reasons:

1) It is widely accepted that Robert Walpole is the first PM - he is listed as such on the UK Governments official website and on our own Wikipedia page for the UK Prime Minister.

2) It is also widely accepted that BJ is the 77th Prime Minister - again, this is backed up by the official UK Government website and our own Wikipedia pages.

3) A quick Google search reveals that multiple mainstream media reports Boris Johnson as the 77th PM, and Theresa May the 76th, David Cameron the 75th, and so on - further reinforcing the numbering system as accurate and widely accepted, and the fact that people do refer to PM's by their tenure number.

4) Numbering is not exclusive to the USA, as previously suggested - looking at other countries, such as Singapore, New Zealand, and Australia, they all number their PMs.

5) Numbering leaders would give much more clarity as to the chronological order of the Prime Ministers tenure when viewing their respective pages, without having to consult the full list.

CityPride (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose There is no convention of numbering PMs and there is no clear agreement on how to number the system for handling returning PMs or those who resigned then took office again without replacements (or potential resets) - it's very telling the links offered are American ones. My comments at Talk:Gordon Brown/Archive 2#52nd Prime Minister? set out the position and nothing's changed in the last thirteen years to suggest this is in any way meaningful information worth arguing about. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Based on the GOV UK site I linked, you can see that by having BJ as the 77th PM, there is already an established method for handling and counting such PMs. While not all my agree with it, the method is the widely accepted one. We can also take reference again to other Commonwealth nations on how they handle such scenarios.

• No that's just one webmaster grabbing a number. It does not demonstrate it is the widely accepted system. There isn't a widely accepted system because it isn't a widespread practice - stating the years someone was in office is far more meaningful. How other countries do things is their own affair. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Basically the same as mentioned above, no clear convention in sources for numbering UK PMs or how to handle returning PMs. Some news articles or websites do number them but they are by far the minority, and often not British sources. Even the gov.uk website isn't numbering as such, it's just a tally of how many previous PMs there have been (which is very different than the kind of US numbering style being discussed here). I also think that to take reference from other commonwealth countries to implement in our own lists is borderline original research and should be avoided. Editing with Eric (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose If reading Prime Minister of the United Kingdom doesn't make it clear how silly an idea it is - no fixed start point, periods of having more than one, whether or not to include failed attempts to form a government following appointment by the monarch etc etc etc - I don't know what will. Lovingboth (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. All of the reasons have been given above: UK sources don't number; gov.uk doesn't actually assign numbers to PMs; and even if it were a good idea, history would make picking a number problematic. (And someone please propose removing another non-British convention – the numbering of parliaments.) EddieHugh (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Not to detract from this RfC too much; but sources do sometimes number parliaments. However, there is an issue of inconsistency across sources. I've come across a few books that start numbering from 1800, so for example in 2000 it would be the 52nd parliament; but Dod's Parliamentary Companion (the essential reference guide to parliament) would number by monarch (similar to regnal years), so in 2000 it would be 15th parliament of Elizabeth II. That said, I don't know if Dod's have dropped this practice in recent editions. I'm not keen on numbering from 1800, but it doesn't keep me up at night. Editing with Eric (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. It's not common practice in the UK to number PMs, and you won't find it happening in many British sources. So for that, and all the reasons given above, I don't think it's a good idea. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• The proposal is "to number Prime Ministers by tenure, and not by person", but the objections are to numbering at all. If this opposition is clear, should the present UK numbering be removed? And should numbering be wholly removed not only for the UK but for all countries where it is not official? Perhaps this RfC should be so subdivided.

I would oppose numbering at all. For Australia, I think the only place I've seen PMs numbered is here, in Prime Minister of Australia and List of prime ministers of Australia, where it doesn't serve any purpose that I can detect. (My first reaction was that for Australia one would have to add: "at the last count".) The Parliament of Australia numbers the Parliaments (as Americans number their Congresses), which is useful because Parliaments don't match calendar years, House and Senate members serve different terms (as with Congress), and there is no doubt about when the numbering should begin. Errantius (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose; I have never quite understood why it matters whether someone is the 45th or 42nd or 21st person to hold an office. As far as I can tell, all this numbering just doesn't seem to be done in most countries anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Ah, it can be vital for distinguishing British aristocrats, who succeed to the same name/title: e.g. Viscount Stansgate. Errantius (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose numbering of any sort. See all the responses above. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose numbering. Not a thing we do here. Guy (help!) 00:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose creation of an "official" Wikipedia numbering system for PMs of any sort.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – There is not any convention in Wikipedia on numbering PMs (precisely because it is a hard thing to do in some cases, and because in many cases it also fails to meet WP:VERIFY when sources do not number them). The provided reference to the "UK Government official website" does not give a number to PMs, just gives an overall number of people having held the office (making an interpretation that it's meant to be a numbering of PMs would be clearly WP:SYNTH). We may have situations (such as Spain) where there have been countless of regime changes and the office has underwent several major transformations that essentially make any numbering as pointless. So far, numbering should only be used when sources do explicitly use it. Impru20^talk 09:16, 21 February 2020 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2020

I want to change the paragraph about brexit by adding on the recent events. I also want to complete the honours list. 58.182.92.248 (talk) 08:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry, but it's not really clear what changes you are proposing. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

External links

This section is covered by WP:External links, specifically ELPOINTS #3, WP:ELMIN, as well as WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Moved trimmed links here for any possible discussion:

• Profile at Parliament of the United Kingdom
• Contributions in Parliament at Hansard
• Contributions in Parliament at Hansard 1803–2005
• Voting record at Public Whip
• Record in Parliament at TheyWorkForYou
• Boris Johnson/Archive 5 at IMDb
• Boris Johnson on Samuel Johnson, BBC Radio 4 Great Lives

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

First marriage ended in annulment, not divorce

Are the grounds for annulment known? According to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 then in force (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/18/section/12/1991-02-01):

"A marriage celebrated after 31st July 1971 shall be voidable on the following grounds only, that is to say—

(a) that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the incapacity of either party to consummate it;

(b) that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the wilful refusal of the respondent to consummate it;

(c) that either party to the marriage did not validly consent to it, whether in consequence of duress, mistake, unsoundness of mind or otherwise;

(d) that at the time of the marriage either party, though capable of giving a valid consent, was suffering (whether continuously or intermittently) from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983 of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfitted for marriage;

(e) that at the time of the marriage the respondent was suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form;

(f) that at the time of the marriage the respondent was pregnant by some person other than the petitioner."

.. and any of those would seem to be notable. Lovingboth (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this information in the public domain? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's a public record. See https://www.gov.uk/copy-decree-absolute-final-order for how to get the order of annulment. Lovingboth (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Um, that's how to get one. Not how to check if someone else got one? Or, more pertinently, how to determine the reason for that annulment? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I wondered about that, too. Especially as the alleged annulment came some six years into the marriage; the usual time limit being three. I know that The Guardian is normally considered RS and all that, but could it be that the article cited is simply wrong? DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems odd that The Guardian is the only source? It's just attributed to "PA Media" not any named author. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: Tatler, clearly says they divorced. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

As does the Mail. Granted, The Guardian probably trumps both of those in the RS stakes, but this does increasingly look like a possible error on their part. I'll mark that spot in the article as dubious, let's see if that shakes anything more out of this tree. DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

What on earth are you suggesting!? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm no RS maven, but I see that WP:RSP says that the Guardian is considered generally reliable. There are other sources ([14], [15], [16] (truncated), [17], etc.) the reports from various sources probably all trace back to a single news agency report somewhere. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, agency reports often get used, don't they, when a news outlet doesn't have time to investigate a story properly itself? That Tatler article was a dedicated bio piece on Allegra Mostyn-Owen. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The wording in those sources is pretty much identical, so probably does go back to a common source, meaning the error could have been simply replicated. And while The Guardian is generally RS, RS doesn't mean infallible, surely.

I expect the answer could be found in the National Archive (?), but would that fall foul of the original research rules, then? DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, unless also published by an RS. But one would have the satisfaction of knowing, wouldn't one. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

No. Per WP:PRIMARY policy in WP:NOR ("Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."), primary sources, like WP:SELFPUB sources, can be cited as sources confirming that they say what they verifiably do say. Per WP:SECONDARY policy in WP:NOR ("Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.") Interpretation (and misinterpretation, and misreporting) about that is left up to must be verifiable in secondary sources, which can also be cited as sources confirming that they say what they verifiably do say. Disagreements and diffences between sources are handled according to WP:DUE in WP:NPOV. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I won't argue. Some more sources which say "divorced": This Week (quotes Daily Mail), The Standard, Express, The Daily Telegraph. The rather prosaic reason for the divorce? Marina was "up the duff." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I've just had a look at the Andrew Gimson biography, Boris: The Adventures of Boris Johnson aka Boris: The Rise Of Boris Johnson, on Google Books and found the following quotation:

"Allegra agreed to an accelerated divorce, but time was short. Paul Hill, foreign desk manager at the Daily Telegraph, said Boris 'got in a bit of a tizz' when getting married to Marina as he 'hadn't quite divorced his old wife yet'."

I don't think a biographer would have got this wrong. In this case I think a usually reliable source made a mistake in a single article. I reached my free reading limit on the Google Books book so I can't give further details, but others could take over - see Chapters 12 and 13 of Boris: The Adventures of Boris Johnson, click on the table of contents or there's a 'search this book' text box. Mattstan (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Reporting on Allegra Mostyn-Owen's second marriage, the Sunday Times of 10 January 2010 says of her relationship with Johnson: They met when they were students at Oxford and married in 1987. The marriage was finally annulled six years later. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in the details of this anyhow -- I just stumbled across the discussion and I haven't read all the mentioned sources closely -- some of them are only partially viewable online without a subscription. The currently cited supporting source (the Guardian -- currently tagged {{dubious}}) -- and at least one other secondary source say "the marriage was annulled", but at least two other secondary sources [18][19] say "divorce". It seems to me that a cite of the court ruling (or whatever document officializes such things in the UK) -- the primary source behind all these secondary sources -- would settle things if that primary source is verifiable. Whether or not the primary source is verifiable, though, it seems to me that WP:DUE requires that if the article reports what one of these secondary sources says about this detail, it should give due weight to other secondary sources which disagree.

As far as the biographer goes, it seems to me that "Allegra agreed to an accelerated divorce, but time was short. Paul Hill, foreign desk manager at the Daily Telegraph, said Boris 'got in a bit of a tizz' when getting married to Marina as he 'hadn't quite divorced his old wife yet'." is speaking of what the biographer thought about what Hill thought about Johnson's thinking when he was in a state which Hill described as 'got in a bit of a tizz' about what Hill characterizes as 'hadn't quite divorced his old wife yet', not about the verified detail of the legal character of the split; or perhaps I misread those nested quotes. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's a link to the 2010 Sunday Times article: "Interviews of the week: Kirsty Young, Kurt Westergaard, Boris Johnson". Sunday Times. 10 January 2010. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately the article linked can only be read by those who are paid subscribers of the Sunday Times. Mattstan (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mattstan: I quoted the relevant bit above. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The New European also reported it as an annulment on 7 September 2018 here. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

But it should not be about voting between editors about which source from among differing sources has the most editorial support between WP editors, it should be about reporting the differing interpretations between secondary sources -- giving due weight to differing viewpoints rather than choosing what viewpoints to report and what ones not to. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto: It seems to me you're covering old ground: various sources do report this as being 'annulment', that much is known already; the question is whether those reports are accurate or, as has been suggested, whether there might have been an erroneous original report which was subsequently copied by other without any further fact-checking. Just because something is printed in The Times or The Guardian or other usually-reliable source doesn't mean it can't be wrong. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: why should we assume the first 'annulment' report was inaccurate and others followed any more than we should assume that the first 'divorce' report was inaccurate and others followed it? I'm not sure we should be judging the sources anyway, but, as Wtmitchell says just above, contrasting them with each other. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I don't think it should be assumed but... The 1st post in this topic cites the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 which sets out the reasons that allow for a marriage annulment. None seems likely in this case but all are possible. DoubleGrazing pointed out 4 posts later that the usual time limit for annulment is 3 years, this is borne out by Section 13 of the act, which I think in practical terms means that an annulment after more than 3 years of marriage is unlikely to be granted unless it can be shown that the marriage was never consummated. In my view this makes an annulment doubtful and a divorce probable and I give greater credence to a biography than to the publications cited as sources. I certainly agree with Lovingboth that, if the marriage was annulled, then the reason for that annulment would be notable. Accordingly I think the matter should be pursued. Mattstan (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mattstan: for the reason for any annulment to have due enough weight for it to be included, there would be abundant coverage of it in reliable sources jumping out at us. For now, we have some reliable sources (one dating back to 2010) saying it was an annulment (but without saying why) and others saying it was a divorce. As I see it, our job is to present a duly balanced sentence or two based on those, and nothing else. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2020

Hon FRIBA should be removed from the infobox above Boris Johnson's name, it is not relevant or notable for his role as Prime Minister. Many previous holders of the office have had honorary fellowships but we do not see them listed in that prime position. Completely pointless to list it and adds nothing to the value of the article, it should remain in honours/honorary degrees etc. Change to just Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP Ortolan57 (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's not too popular is it, even with members of the body that bestowed it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Done Has now been removed here. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2020

In the section "Second term: 2012–2016": 'Johnson also added that he wanted Trump to "to come and see the whole of London' 81.103.37.86 (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done. You're right, but the quote wasn't given correctly, so I've updated it anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Boris Johnson tests positive for coronavirus

ref. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/27/uk/uk-boris-johnson-coronavirus-gbr-intl/index.html Why it is not covered in the article??? He announced it himself. Without references the article's length is 33 pages. I would say there is a plenty of room to include this serious, important and breaking news in the main article. What do you think about it? 87.97.87.149 (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It is in the article, in both the lead and the text. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus pandemic in lead

@EddieHugh: in your recent edit you removed everything about the coronavirus pandemic from the lead. Would it not be better to keep the first sentence. The fact he tested positive may be WP:RECENTISM, but the pandemic itself is historically significant and in my view should be in the intro. Andysmith248 (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that the part The 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic emerged as a serious crisis within the first few months of Johnson gaining the 2019 majority or some variant of it should remain. Andysmith248 (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

There's no rush. Wikipedia is here to stay. It's an encyclopedia, not a newspaper: at the moment, no one knows how significant recent events will be for Johnson (this, specifically, is what matters for this article). We can wait and find out how important it becomes for him, then summarise what happened in the lead. EddieHugh (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Currently only worth putting in the main body of the article unless it becomes very significant to his overall premiership. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd say it's worth a mention, if briefly, at the bottom of the third paragraph. Something along the lines of "Johnson led the UK through its exit from the European Union and then the Coronovirus outbreak." Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

He certainly hasn't led the UK though the Coronovirus outbreak! We can't say that until it's over. EddieHugh (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

He got COVID-19 by being reckless

Shortly before he announced he had the virus he said "he shook hands with everybody".https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2020/mar/27/i-shook-hands-with-everybody-says-boris-johnson-weeks-before-coronavirus-diagnosis-video (Fran Bosh (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC))

Not shortly, it was weeks earlier. EddieHugh (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

OK. Please add A few weeks before he announced he had the virus he said "he shook hands with everybody". (Fran Bosh (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC))

Do you have a reliable source which states that he contracted COVID-19 as a result of shaking hands? Otherwise, saying he got it for being "reckless" would be WP:OR. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• 'I shook hands with everybody,' says Boris Johnson weeks before coronavirus diagnosis – [video] --217.234.65.245 (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Boris Johnson moved to intensive care

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52192604 I think this should be added under section 5.7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.75.83.135 (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 19:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"falsifying a quotation"

The article says Mr Johnson was "dismissed for falsifying a quotation". This makes it sound as if it was a literary quotation which was at stake (e.g. suggesting that Shakespeare wrote "Where art thou Romeo?" instead of "Wherefore art thou Romeo?") – though that's admittedly a dreadful thing to do, one would have thought it excessively punitive to treat it as a sackable offence. If he deliberately misreported what someone had said, or distorted what they said so as to misrepresent them or present them in an unfavourable light, that would be quite a different matter. This should be clarified. Deipnosophista (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

" This makes it sound as if it was a literary quotation that was at stake" - no, the meaning of quotation in a journalistic context is quite well established. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:A4BA:5E0E:4DAB:8453 (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not defending BoJo, but compressing, jazzing up or shortening a quoted line from an interview or a written document is quite common practice among newspaper journalists today, there are thousans of examples of it that are never questioned. And I'm not talking about merely removing aaahs, ahems and false-start phrases.192.121.232.253 (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It was my understanding that he had invented a quote.--Launchballer 13:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Reactions to hospitalisation

While Johnson's hospitalisation is obviously notable for this article, does it really need mentions of the sympathies from other politicians? Even if they are Labour, it's not really saying anything that they feel sorry for a man in intensive care. It would be far more notable if a political rival said something callous, and thankfully that hasn't happened. Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it is worth mentioning a few notable politians like Iain Duncan Smith, Keir Starmer and Sadiq Khan, more so if they are not Conservative. Of course, we do not want a long list of people saying 'I hope he gets better', etc. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Concur with Spy Circle a selected few will do, certainly no need for a long list of people all basically saying the same thing. –Davey2010^Talk 01:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

None should be included. This is an encyclopedia article on Johnson, not a get well soon card. EddieHugh (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is against this merger. buidhe 05:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Instead of boldly doing it, I am proposing a merge of Carrie Symonds into Boris Johnson's personal life secton until she develops enough of her own public image for an article to stand on. About 80% of this article is redundant information about his affair, her pregnancy, how she is the first "domestic partner" of the Prime Minister (not an accomplishment, it's just temporary as they are now engaged), or just about anything involving relation to Johnson. Her career section is only 3 sentences. ⌚️ (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Merge most of the sources are about Boris rather than her, and most of the personal life section sources are just about the relatives. She's not independently notable, and being the PM's GF/fiancée is not enough for a Wikipedia article. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Merge I fully agree. -- Alarics (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm fairly neutral about the proposal. But if the engaged couple get married later this year, there is then likely to be large amount of media coverage about her and in that scenario I think having her own article would be justified. One could also argue that as the first unmarried partner of a prime minister to reside in 10 Downing Street she does currently have a public media profile and her comments on the climate crisis and on taxi-driver John Worboys have received media attention. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Be that as it may, look at the article for what it is and look at the sources for what they are. Virtually none of it gives independent notability by Wikipedia standards, as notability is not inherited. Being the first "unmarried partner" is a temporary relationship status. (It's more diplomatic than saying "mistress", the man is still married after all). When they do inevitably marry, of course more intense media interest will be given to her... in relation and context to him. But as of yet she has been treated as the supporting character of her own life. Who knows if the media will manage to pull more career info than they have, honestly it's pretty vague. If she becomes a notable conservationist then it would warrant a full article. ⌚️ (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly keep: arguing over the notability of Symonds is one thing; arguing over the notability of Symonds when pages exist for every Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (a list which currently lists Symonds with "fiancée" in parenthesis) strikes me as either "I don't like Boris" political bias or, assuming good faith, no knowledge of the clear precedent. Either Marina Wheeler, Philip May, Norma Major et al have to be deleted - Mrs Major's article is even less about her than Symonds' (seriously, there's only two mini-paragraphs about her in her own right) - or Symonds is kept. As far as I'm concerned, this shouldn't even be proposed without considering the consequences on the latter articles. Spa-Franks (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Spa-Franks: As I'm not British, I really don't give a good damn about his politics (that I'm not even familiar enough with to have an opinion on) to be "biased". I don't edit with bias, I'm the one who made Heidi Cruz, "the wife of" a politician I don't agree with anything on a Good Article and DYK because her education and career achievements as a businesswoman are notable, as an investment banker, Bush aide, and Harvard graduate among others. I'm the one who looks at merit for articles, hence why I brought it to discussion. There are countless political or royal spouses (or soon to be) / relatives articles that ought to be considered for deletion. When someone only has 3 sentences worth of a career section and the rest is about their relationship status, whose sources do nothing for her, it isn't "biased" to call for merging. Then again, this is the website where people fought tooth and nail to want Paul McCartney's parents to have an article. ⌚️ (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I don't agree with them all having an article, but the article in question does not demonstrate independent notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly keep: in addition to the above contribution regarding convention and similar articles, which I fully agree with, this would be an incredibly short-termist thing to do. By OP's own admission, public knowledge of her will likely soon develop enough to merit significant detail to be included in her own article. This would simply be a case of digging a hole with the aim of filling it back in again soon enough. Lj16118 23:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I definitely didn't say "soon." ⌚️ (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly keep: As a couple of people have already pointed out, every British PM, all the way back to Walpole, have articles about their spouses, if they had one. Convention dictates that we keep it. As for Carrie's visibility, it is already developing - a simple indicator would be the tabloids. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

*sigh* We have standards here specifically against tabloid-ism.· As a matter of fact everytime you edit a biographical article you get this warning: Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism; see more information on sources. If that's all you can muster then my rationale for merging is speaking volumes. ⌚️ (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

That was a bit light-hearted(sorry:), but my main point was the one about previous spouses. Also, on a serious note, Carrie is getting a good degree of visibility from non-tabloid sources. You will notice that the main criterion for the significance of a PM's spouse in previous articles is the degree to which she is associated with him (the la Malinche thing), which she increasingly is. Also, as others here have pointed out, she may well develop her own clout soon, in which case the merger will become a temporary aberration. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s much better to “temporarily” merge a very low-quality article (say, for a year or 2) with redundant sentences than keep it up with very subpar sourcing when the scale tilts toward him. I have yet to see even a full editorial on her. ⌚️ (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

In that case the article's quality should be improved - deletion is not the cure. Here's one. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Does it have to say in big bold letters: Merging is not deleting? Hello? ⌚️ (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: per points made by others. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep There seem to be enough serious journalistic stories about her. Her connection with Boris obvious singles her out for attention, but we judge notability by whether attention has been drawn, and reliable content published. It has. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

None of which is represented in the sources. And truthfully, none of which will be rectified by the whataboutists. What is the encyclopedic quality of "Boris Johnson's pregnant fiancée is recovering from coronavirus symptoms".⌚️ (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per other points JamesVilla44 (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Would the place to discuss this be Wikipedia: Proposed article mergers? Vorbee (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

No. ⌚️ (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - she has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Merging is not even about general notability guidelines whatsoever... this isn’t a deletion proposal. ⌚️ (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - per Storm. Rwendland (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - per Storm. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly keep: She's a significant enough activist in her own right. PassionFruity (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

If that is actually the current case, please present reliable sources that would make her own career section longer than 3 sentences. All I keep seeing is that her views possibly influence him. ⌚️ (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Her legal activism against the taxi rapist was significant. It shouldn't be denigrated and should be listed as her activism instead of her "personal life". PassionFruity (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

No one here is “denigrating” her activism—none of this is about feelings, nor should it be. Saying that the section’s paltriness of quality and content while the rest of the article relies on inherited notability isn’t admonishment. The rape trial, realistically, is only one piece of her life story and doesn’t create notability on its own. That article is currently open for anyone to edit with reliable sources (unless vandalism starts happening then it would need protection). ⌚️ (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Considering Marina Wheeler has a standalone page, there's literally no reason for Carrie not to have a page. Carrie is arguably more notable right now than Wheeler. I just feel like if she weren't a younger woman this wouldn't even be considered for merging. Even Philip May has a standalone Wikipedia page and I saw less written about him in the entire time his wife was prime minister than I've heard of Carrie Symonds. It does seem (or at least, it appears to me) like she's being belittled and denigrated because of her age. PassionFruity (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

She should have her own article. She's her own person and has a fair bit of notability now in fairness.

References

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.

Boris is a PM as well as a MP

Under Boris Johnson's name, it says MP, although he is an MP, yes, although he is the Prime Minister so shouldn't PM be put?

Cheers, EGL1234 (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

No. His proper title is The Rt Honourable Boris Johnson MP. Prime Minister is his role, but doesn't confer a title (save that the PM has to be a member of the Privy Council, which confers the honorific "right honourable")86.169.72.81 (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)