Jump to content

Talk:Boris Johnson/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Article tag

Hello. I believe that the tag at the start of the article, the tag that reads "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page. (February 2022)" should be kept. I thought that it was the consensus that that tag be added, but 2 editors have since removed it, I do not know if it should be kept. I think that an article of over 384,000 bytes is too long to read and navigate, but if more people think that the article should stay without it, then I will concede. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Tim O'Doherty. I agree with you. Concerns about WP:RECENTISM and article length have been raised by a number of editors before. In February 2021 the Johnson article was approx 271,000 bytes. A year later, by the end of February 2022, the article was approx 372,000 bytes – an increase of over 100,000 bytes in 12 months. Further concerns about length were raised again on the talk page but in the last two and a half months it has increased by another 12,000+ bytes to over 384,000 bytes.
I was a bit surprised that the tag of "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably" was removed. At what point do we agree that the article has become too long – when it reaches 400,000 or 450,000 bytes? The article on Winston Churchill, who was an MP for over 60 years and had two separate periods as PM in the 1940s and 1950s, is currently less than 220,000 bytes. The article on James Callaghan, an MP for over 40 years and the only person in UK history to have held all four Great Offices of State is currently under 87,000 bytes. The Johnson article is more than quadruple that. In my view, too many quotes have been added in the last 18 months which could be trimmed as per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. I also don't think adding recent opinion polls on how the public view Johnson is entirely necessary either. Opinion polls regularly fluctuate. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree tag needs to be kept. I have actually tried to draft a split off page of Public image of Boris Johnson, combining the public image, reception and popular culture sections from the main article. Please see my sandbox and feel free to edit. I based the sections off of Public image of Donald Trump and Public image of Vladimir Putin. A summary style section would then replace this in the main article. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

We are specifically barred from keeping maintenance tags on articles as a permanent or semi-permanent feature on an article. The purpose is to generate and facilitate discussion by driving visiting editors to talk, which thus far it has evidently failed to do. There is a certain irony in the tag's removal finally generating some discussion of the notional issue. I digress –

As regards the proposal to split notable views on subj into a separate article: this would run quite contrary to NPOV. The article already suffers from an unfortunate feature of BLP articles, particularly controversial public figures, that runs contrary to Wp:STRUCTURE. Namely, separating off noteworthy views into a separate section. WP:BLPBALANCE indicates that such views should be included where there is sufficient secondary sourcing. Following WP:STRUCTURE they should be folded into the narrative rather than separated off like an afterthought; often shorn of contemporary biographical or political context. Separating off into a separate article would be a yet more egregious failure to maintain NPOV.

If there is a consensus to seek to reduce article length, it needs to be done while maintaining BLPBALANCE and NPOV. Shearing off sections that ought to be part of the main narrative would not achieve this. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting we shear off essential sections of the article, just cut the fluff or indeed just add the article tag back, because that is what this discussion is about. We're running before we can walk. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

There seems to be a missing word, should probably be "during", in the last sentence of the COVID-19 pandemic subsection of the article:

"Against these measures, the government experienced the largest rebellion of Conservative MPs [during] Johnson's premiership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.143.210 (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done, thanks — Czello 08:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Democratic backsliding.

I think the police and crime bill, the changes to ministerial code and stances on issues such as internet freedom should warrant a line or two in the lead, framed as an example of democratic backsliding. --2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:4934:3C4C:E92E:DBB0 (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

We'd only report something as critical as that if it were substantially called that by reliable sources. — Czello 07:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
There are plenty of Guardian op-eds about this, the main issue would be WP:UNDUE. Jr8825 • Talk 12:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Op-eds also aren't reliable sources. — Czello 12:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
My remark about Guardian op-eds was slightly ironic; I agree op-eds are marginal at best when written by regular columnists. However, opinion pieces by guest experts from a particular field can be acceptable depending on the context (high quality publication, attributed, likely to indicate a significant viewpoint within a field).
I carried out a quick Google search, which reinforces my impression there are RS for this, so the problem is weight. See: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. The sources I've linked are generally strong and/or academic, and given how many sources my search turned up, I'm minded to add coverage of these concerns/criticism to the article body. My rough assessment is that there's insufficient weight for more than a couple of sentences (particularly as many of the linked articles characterise these claims as the author's opinion, rather than as statements of fact), so it'd consequently be unsuitable for the lead per MOS:LEADREL. Jr8825 • Talk 13:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Quite agree. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The lead was out of date.

On 31 May 2022 the lead to this article was Boris Johnson. The above disregarded a poll taken in April 2022 showing over 70% of the public view Johnson negatively. See Boris Johnson widely regarded as a ‘liar’ by voters, poll finds. I altered the lead to bring it up to date. DeFacto has reverted it and wants a discussion. As I write DeFacto's edit has already been reverted. I don't understand DeFacto's objection, The Independent is a reliable source. Still let's discuss. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Proxima Centauri, I'm not sure that the result of one poll has enough weight to justify such a fundamental change to the lead. I think the argument needs to be developed in the article body first, with due weight and reliably sourced commentary, then the summary for the lead would be developed from that.
However, as you say, Cambial Yellowing seems to have decided steamroller the change back in, so I'll wait and see if anyone else has any views on it.
P.S. have you noticed the 'Show preview' button at the botton of the edit screen, next to the 'Publish changes' button? If you use that you can check the formatting of your post, and correct it if necessary, before finally publishing it. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
steamroller is your, quite silly, characterisation. It doesn’t remotely accord with a single revert to restore Proxima Centauri’s sourced edits presented in a neutral narrative. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I had reverted an undiscussed change to the lead, suggesting that, per WP:BRD, it be taken to the talkpage first. Your immediate overruling of my suggestion was, at the very least, an oppressive and relentless power or force, wouldn't you say? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
No. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Is there a rule that the lead of a long article can't be changed without discussion? The leads of shorter articles can be changed without discussion and are frequently changed. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@Proxima Centauri, no, but such changes can be reverted (as I did to yours) and it is then expected, per WP:BRD, that a discussion (like this one) would then take place to decide how to proceed. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
BRD, as is emphasised on the page, is an optional method of consensus-seeking, not a requirement. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Do multiple RS say/infer that Johnson's post-partygate unpopularity is a defining feature of his premiership? If so, does our article body already reflect this? These are the two preconditions for such a change, are they met? Jr8825 • Talk 12:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
The Guardian reported, 4 days ago, that "Anger among Tory backbenchers is spreading amid fallout from the Sue Gray report, with one minister warning Boris Johnson is in “yellow card territory”.... Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions, the Treasury minister John Glen said he had had a “very frank and very honest” meeting with Johnson to express his and his constituents’ misgivings. and The Daily Telegraph reported, back in February "Prime Minister's favourability ratings have dropped to record lows, putting him on track to be one of the most disliked leaders since 1980s". In January, yougov.co.uk reported: "New YouGov polling reveals that Johnson’s net favourability has dropped to another all-time low since he became prime minister in July 2019, surpassing the previous low of -42 a month ago. Having recovered slightly over the Christmas break, when the stories briefly disappeared from the news, it now stands at -52, with nearly three-quarters (72%) of the British public now having an unfavourable opinion of the prime minister." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Even if the wording should change to reflect Johnson's low popularity following partygate, plucking one polling figure and including it in the lead seems arbitrary, especially since public figure opinion polls can fluctuate wildly over even the short term. Jr8825 • Talk 13:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    So "with an appeal stretching beyond traditional Conservative voters" (supported by sources from 2011 and 2015) in still a fair summary is it? No mention of Partygate at all in the lead section? And no mention of his increasing unpopularity with the majority of British voters? I would have to agree with User:Proxima Centauri that the lead section is hopelessly out of date and needs to be improved. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    Partygate is linked, but piped as "wider controversy over government social gatherings". Is "Partygate" widely understood enough to be used without this exposition, or can this be rephrased to somehow include both? (e.g. "During Partygate, a political scandal involving government social gatherings during COVID-19 lockdowns, he became the first prime minister in British history to have been sanctioned...") Regarding the impact on his popularity, I'm still cautious about adding this to the lead. Several editors, such as @Proxima Centauri, have said that this would reflect what's in the article body, but the only coverage of this I'm seeing currently is a paragraph in the "Partygate" sub-section recounting opinion polls without commentary or analysis (so essentially it's a primary source), and a sentence in "Public Image" attributed to Laura Kuenssberg about his popularity being damaged. If the lead is to reflect the body, I'd expect either the "Partygate" section polling paragraph to include an assessment of how significant this is (although I haven't read it, the Telegraph article @Martinevans123 links above about him being "one of the most disliked leaders since 1980s" might be appropriate), or an expansion of the "Public Image" section sentence to include more than one citation/commentator. Once this is done, I still don't think I'd be happy with a 70% figure, as it's impractically imprecise: I'd want to see a well-supported assessment that his popularity is particularly low/has consistently stayed low, and that this is notable. His popularity could rebound somewhat in the future, for example. Jr8825 • Talk 18:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, I think "Partygate" is widely understood enough to be used without this exposition. I think your suggested rephrase is perfectly good. As for "rebound somewhat in the future", that's a bit WP:CRYSTAL. Yes, sure it could happen. He might also be run over by a bus tomorrow. One has to be hopeful.Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    So you think it should read "During Partygate, he became the first prime minister in British history to have been sanctioned...? Provided it's wikilinked, I don't have a problem with this, although I'd prefer an expanded version (such as the one I suggest above) as we also need to consider non-UK readers who may be unfamiliar with British politics. Jr8825 • Talk 18:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Why does the lead contain several citations to the work of Sonia Purnell? She wrote a biography of Johnson in 2012, well before most of the controversies of his term as prime minister. Her work seems outdated by circumstances. Dimadick (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, he had a life before becoming PM. But yes, a ten-year-old biography can't be expected to be able to make a full appraisal of his career to date. Then again, as per WP:LEADCITE, why are any citations needed in the lead? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The lead is out of date, it doesn't reflect public opinion on Johnson or reflect the rest of the article. I suspect insisting on discussion before the lead is changed has been a factor in the lead becoming so out of date. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The sentence in question states "Supporters have praised him as humorous and entertaining, with an appeal stretching beyond traditional Conservative voters." That says very little about an overall level of popularity; it's about what his supporters say. Do his supporters now not say this? Putting in the latest poll data would mean we'd be constantly changing the contents (they shouldn't be in the body or the lead... look at WP:NOTNEWS) and people would pick and choose whatever suited their own views. A summary only in the body − 'His popularity fell following...' − is sufficient if there's a good level of sources available, spread over at least several months. Whether that becomes something to expand and add to the lead would depend on whether changes in popularity develop into something substantive... so far, they haven't. (Political leaders are usually unpopular after they've been in charge for a while.) EddieHugh (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes, right. Partygate has just been a tiny inconsequential distraction from the vital wok of government, and has had no effect at all on how the public view Johnson. Let's all just wait until his ratings recover. It's not as if the Tory MPs dare not send in another 26 letters because there's no obvious candidate for them to pick as a new leader instead. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Seems I was mistaken. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
"Prime minister greeted with whistles and jeers by crowd waiting at cathedral for Queen’s thanksgiving service" So I guess his ratings may not have quite recovered yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
It certainly looks like Johnson's ratings haven't recovered. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
One might have thought that a staunchly patriotic crowd of Royalists might have given him at least token support. There was distinct booing. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Conservative losses in the 2022 United Kingdom local elections also suggest Johnson isn't hugely popular. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, Martinevans and I all want Johnson's loss of popularity mentioned. I think the vote of no confidence will be more than a recent issue. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a strong view on the precise wording. The confidence vote is likely to be worth mentioning in the long term, but the loss of popularity probably isn't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
The loss of popularity is important, it effects how likely the Conservatives are to win another general election and influences local elections and by-elections. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
See WP:RECENTISM and WP:CRYSTAL. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
In the UK – unlike some countries – a political leader's popularity with the public almost never matters, except in a major election, which in the UK almost always means a general election. If Johnson's still around for the next one, his party loses and there are lots of sources pointing to him being one of the reasons for the loss, then his fall in popularity will have led to something substantive. A party in long-term government usually does badly in local elections and by-elections, and their leader is usually unpopular in opinion polls, so these things might be worth mentioning briefly in the body, but not in the lead... yet. Maybe the confidence vote will get him and his ousters will say that he was too unpopular with the public – now that would be lead-worthy! EddieHugh (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the most recent revert. Appear to be WP:RECENTISM for now.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
We've had over six months of Partygate. I think his popularity has declined massively over that period. Not sure that's all WP:RECENTISM. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Just because something is true doesn't mean it's necessarily suitable for the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it depends on the emphasis given to it in the main body. Tonight it seems that 59% of Tory MPs will keep it out for a while longer. A choice between "the human hand-grenade" and "the C-word" must have been just too much to countenance. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Suggested addition re Greased Piglet

After the sentence in his BLP where David Cameron refers to Johnson as the "greased piglet", can we add a second sentence to say that Cameron's term became strongly associated with Johnson? The references are numerous and all WP:RS/P. For Example: Telegraph, Independent, The Times, Bloomberg, Washington Post .... I could list the entire WP:RS/P section for news outlets and find the term "Greased piglet" for Johnson (I could probably justify a separate WP article). There is even a case for putting it into the lede. 78.19.236.182 (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I have updated the Pig wrestling article for the association of the term with Johson using refs that can be used in this article? 78.19.236.182 (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Was this all just piggy-tit-for-piggy-tat? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Wow, that is an incredible link (what an amazing site WP is), however, i think the term has really stuck (no further pun intended) and is referenced many times by high quality sources? 78.19.236.182 (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
This is an article from The Economist on his reputation as the greased piglet. Deserves more coverage in this article. The four faces of Boris Johnson. 31.187.2.160 (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Severe WP:OVERQUOTE in Public Image section

I tried to cut down what I consider to be a relatively clear-cut case of over-quoting in the 'Public Image' section, where there were several long paragraphs made up almost entirely of assorted quotes from two now-dated biographies, which in many cases were repetitive or contained miscellaneous detail. In particular, MOS:QUOTE says: "using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style". I believe the cuts I made were a positive change (especially given the article length). Proxima Centauri has reverted them wholesale with the rationale that "the quotes help us to understand Johnson", although I disagree with this, as I made an effort to ensure no unique, valuable points were removed. Would you be willing to take a second look, Proxima, and point out which specific changes you object to? Also, what are others thoughts? Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 18:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not just the quotations; it's the enormous number of opinions that are included. We should be trying to remove most of them and summarise instead. However, trimming the quotations is a welcome step, and will help shorten what is already an objectively over-long article (21 kB, based on WP:SIZESPLIT). Such actions are in accordance with the MOS:QUOTE guideline, as you highlight. EddieHugh (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Contrary to your suggestion of trying to remove most of them, WP:BLPBALANCE indicates that Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources. We should avoid giving excessive space to particular views – space should be balanced. But there’s no reason to remove them entirely based on a style guideline. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood EddieHugh's comment, or MOS:QUOTE. Reducing the heavy usage of quotes shouldn't involve removing substantive content. Because so many individual opinions are currently quoted (including multiple sections from a small handful of texts), simply paraphrasing each quote in wikivoice would be insufficient, as it would still be overly long and repetitive. In some cases, we need to better convey the overall themes/points in the editorial voice in order to summarise more efficiently. In this particular case, we had multiple quotes saying the same thing, which is why I cut down duplicated quotes & shortened others, while retaining their overall analysis. Jr8825 • Talk 04:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I think you’ve misunderstood BLPBALANCE. The problems with your claim that your edit was justified by MOS:Quote are that: it included removing material that was not a quote, to which that style guideline is not relevant; the quotes were about different things, so were not repetitive; your edit did not retain content in meaning, but simply removed it without wikivoice content in its place. The Purnell quote may be given excessive space; other changes are in no way supported. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
What's the 'balance' argument for having 3 sets of Max Hastings quotations (including highlighting a whole paragraph in its own box)? I count 8 sets of Purnell quotations and 10 from Gimson. Most of this is opinion, not information. To Jr8825's admirably succinct "summarise more efficiently" I add "stress information, not opinion". EddieHugh (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Please could you provide the specific extracts from my diff which you have problems with, so we can discuss them individually? I'm afraid I don't see where valuable content has been lost. I'm also not sure you've looked at my diff carefully; for example, no non-quote material has been removed. Jr8825 • Talk 15:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Is this a joke? Your changes which you claim to justify with MOS:QUOTE included:
  1. removing the phrase with no redeeming features – not a direct quote and not presented as a quote, thus MOS is not relevant
  2. removing the quote "could also be staggeringly inconsiderate of others" with no paraphrase in its place
  3. replacing the quotes "has very bad manners. He tends to be late, does not care about being late, and dresses without much care." and born "to wage a ceaseless struggle for supremacy" with the words highly ambitious.
Was the latter an attempt at some variety of paraphrase as practiced by Edward Bernays and a Cheshire Cat? Those changes and their entirely coincidental one-way bias could give the inadvertent appearance of advocacy. As noted above, BLPBALANCE indicates that secondary sourced criticism and praise should be included. Appraisals of his character from his major biographers are entirely appropriate. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
  1. "No redeeming features" is Bercow's precise phrasing. This can be seen by looking at the supporting source (and is also made clear by the context). It should be presented within quote-marks (another case of this article's poor adherence to MOS:QUOTE). Bercow's key point, that Johnson is "ritually dishonest" and [one of] the worst ... prime ministers is only borderline suitable as he's a competing politician (not an expert, so it's expected that he'll be slagging off his rivals), but it could be argued that this comment reflects popular views of Johnson, so I retained it. The "no redeeming features" jibe at the end is extraneous and adds nothing. It's clearly rhetoric/a disparaging insult with no encylopedic value.
  2. The quote that [Johnson] "could also be staggeringly inconsiderate of others" when pursuing his own interests is substantially duplicated by the statement that Johnson's colleagues regularly expressed the view that he used people to advance his own interests, which I retained. There is no need to repeat this claim twice, particularly given concerns about space, weight and WP:BLPSTYLE. Either could be kept, I chose the latter because it is attributed to colleagues rather than a single biographer, so in my view has more authority.
  3. You have again misread my diff here. "Ambitious" is Gimson's own wording and was present before the changes. I cut the detail about being late/messy because it is relatively unimportant and already covered above (Johnson purposely cultivates a "semi-shambolic look", for instance, by specifically ruffling his hair in a certain way when he makes public appearances"). "Born to wage a ceaseless struggle for supremacy" is rhetorical and questionable tone/editorial selection for a BLP, so I neutrally summarised it (and Gimson's related points) as "Gimson described Johnson as highly ambitious and very competitive".
I strongly object to the suggestion that my edits appear as advocacy, and I urge you not to assume bad faith as you are insinuating -- if you look at some of my previous contributions to this page and its discussions, you'll see my general stance has been that more criticism of Johnson is due. I simply take great lengths to detach my personal views of him from my judgement as an editor. Please could you take a closer look at the diff and my responses; if you find it difficult to follow the diff, you might find it easier to compare the text before and after. I still believe these changes are positive, bring the quotes into line with guidance, and don't detract from the overall content. If you remain unconvinced and we can't agree, I'd be keen to seek a neutral third opinion on this. Jr8825 • Talk 17:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I fail to see how you managed to perceive my explicitly stating and linking to AGF as an assumption of bad faith. Advocacy is not necessarily bad faith, but regardless, the fact that all aspects of this specific edit minimised or removed negative attitudes gave the appearance of advocacy, which is what I said. It was not a comment on your editing history in general, of which I know nothing. If you say you are not seeking to advocate I believe you.
As another editor has already reverted your edit, and another has commented, 3PO would not be an appropriate venue to seek editor opinion (it would be rendered "5PO" in the circumstance). You would need to seek other methods of gaining wider community input.
I suggest easing off on your explicit claims of misunderstanding. The implication you make, based on nothing, is that the only possible way an objection to your proposed change could arise is that other editors misunderstood policy, or misunderstood your edit. I assure you I'm familiar with policy, I understood your edit, and I've not "misread" it. It's not supported by the policy.
The manual of style is about how content should be presented, not what content should be included in the encyclopaedia. The section of MOS:QUOTE that you refer to is about aiming to put content in editor's own words. You quoted a short section, but ignored the succeeding sentence: It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate (my emph). MOS:QUOTE cannot be used to justify removing content simply because it is a quotation. That said, some circumstances, particularly where we are including noteworthy opinions rather than facts, call for more widespread use of quotes. This is because in representing living person's views about other people, there is a kind of two-way BLP standard where we need to be certain we are in no way misrepresenting their views by paraphrasing.
The commonly-used three-word phrase employed by Bercow *could* be presented in quotation marks. I have no opinion either way. MOS:QUOTE is not a reason to remove it, and as part of his view I think it appropriate to include. You are welcome to argue otherwise; MOS:QUOTE does not support the argument. The policy about determining whether opinions about living persons ought to be included is WP:BLPBALANCE; whether someone is an "expert" is not relevant (indeed, no-one could really be described as a "subject expert" on another living person). What matters is whether their views are sufficiently noteworthy that they are reported in multiple reliable sources (in this case they are).
"staggeringly inconsiderate of others" is not an analogue of "used people to advance his own interests", just as "inconsiderate" is not a synonym of "manipulative".
I agree that the phrase "semi-shambolic look" has some similarity to "and dresses without much care." The latter phrase comes at the end of a sentence which describes different aspects of Johnson's personality or character that are not described elsewhere; it could be trimmed and edited to remove the five words; personally I think it better as is. Whether the last phrase under discussion is rhetorical and questionable tone is not relevant to inclusion because we're only stating someone else's attributed noteworthy opinion – if they use strong rhetoric or tone, we should reflect that. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
"I fail to see how you managed to perceive my explicitly stating and linking to AGF as an assumption of bad faith." -- I took your comparison between my edit and a propagandist/PR man and a sly, mischievous cat, as well as the phrasing "entirely coincidental one-way bias" to be an uncivil allusion to my motives, but perhaps they were not intended that way. I'd appreciate it if we could focus the conversation only on the content so as to avoid possible misunderstandings like that again.
"You would need to seek other methods of gaining wider community input" -- I think an RfC might be the best way forward? Jr8825 • Talk 16:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
That was only in reference to the latter two phrases' summation as "highly ambitious", and was intended to keep things light. It evidently was far wide of the mark. If you are RFC'ing please remember to keep the statement neutral and commentary "under the fold", and it should probably be split up as some of your changes are not adjacent to each other. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, I can see how I may have misinterpreted your comment. While it's a shame we can't agree on a way to readily condense the quotes (I don't think this results in minimising criticism of Johnson, rather focusing it, but evidently we don't agree on this point), this isn't an immediate priority. Looking at what would need to be done to assemble an easy-to-understand RfC structure for these complex changes, it's more time effective to find cuts elsewhere. The primary aim here was to address the problem of the article being too long and secondarily, to improve encyclopedic style, which is subjective and requires more discussion. If cuts here are too contentious and difficult to achieve now, then we can come back to it later.
I'm going to shorten Bercow's quote to remove "no redeeming features" because I don't think it's suitable for a BLP (we can find ugly quotes for many politicians from other politicians, but that doesn't mean we should include them), but I'll leave the rest of the section as-is. Best, Jr8825 • Talk 18:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2022

There is no part of this page about Boris Johnson's Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs). I'd like to do a summary of them, which I may change every time a new PMQs occurs. This will not take up very much space - I will be concise Pilubeta (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

As PMQs is a weekly event, I suspect that might take up a great deal of space. I don't think any other article for a UK Prime Minister has that level of detail? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

"bullshit"

This recent revert has the edit summary: "that's bullshit - they all won the confidence of the party, the only worse result is to lose that confidence". I'm not sure that's necessarily correct. Perhaps "result" is not the best word, as it can mean either the outcome or the balance of votes. Perhaps the text should read: "The proportion of those in support was less than for his predecessors, Theresa May and Margaret Thatcher, when they faced a similar vote.[1] Martinevans123 (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Just because press commentators make a (slightly dubious, or at least debatable) claim does not necessarily mean it's sufficiently significant to be mentioned in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Those voting figures are simple facts, aren't they? Any dubious claim about their possible significance is a separate question. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The simple voting figures are true, but saying that they are "worse than" the figures for May and Thatcher, in quite different circumstances in different times, is irrelevant commentary in this article - which, let's try to remember, is a biography of Johnson. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
My proposed wording is "The proportion of those in support was less than for his predecessors..." That's a fact, isn't it. Many secondary sources have made this point, and wholly in connection with Johnson himself. Even William Hague has commented on it: "The former Conservative leader said the prime minister experienced a “greater level of rejection” than any of his predecessors had “endured and survived”, including Theresa May in 2018." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
If you must... I wouldn't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The material removed was cited to a reliable source, and there are more reliable sources documenting it. As you know, I think Boris Johnson is a complete and utter (Redacted) so I'm not going to edit the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
You should stick to the Grand Old Duke, he's only a "sweaty nonce". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
It's covered more fully elsewhere. My point is it's not "bullshit". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure that if DeFacto thought that his words and actions fell within the Editorial Code, that's all that matters, isn't it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I think article content matters too. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Boris Johnson wins no-confidence vote despite unexpectedly large rebellion". the Guardian. 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-07.

I agree, that a higher proportion of Tory MP's voted against Johnson than voted against Theresa May is relevsnt and should be in the article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

+1, it's cited to RS news coverage of the vote. I can see how language such as "worse" could be seen as implying (our) editorial judgement, however, stating that he received a lower proportion of support seems relevant given that RS have reported it. Jr8825 • Talk 13:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
+1. Agree with Jr8825. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Sex scandals

Now carefully tidied away here with the edit summary "a) this isn't related to the reception of Johnson whatsoever, b) it's pretty tangential to him personally - better included in Premiership_of_Boris_Johnson". It already appears at Premiership of Boris Johnson. Is everyone agreed that it does not belong here? It's very clear from some of the sources that these allegations, or at least the latest of them, have prompted direct criticism of Johnson. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you Martin.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) (contribs) 13:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm by no means against mentioning it somewhere but it was definitely out of place in Reception and our coverage here should concentrate on what Johnson himself has or has not done. Please drop the "carefully tidied away" attitude though - some of us are better at leaving our POV at the door. SmartSE (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
What he has or has not done? Like appointing Pincher twice? It was carefully tided away, without a trace. Very efficient. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I agree too that it does not belong here. It is not related to Johnson. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I see. So headlines and opinion pieces that use the name "Boris Johnson" (the guy who appointed Pincher, twice) are not about him at all. It's all just an unfortunate coincidence? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The Pincher scandal currently appears once, as the very last item in the topic box. Is that really appropriate? And there's no mention at all in the sub-section on Lying, even though ostensibly that's the reason that at least nine of his ministers have resigned? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2022

Link to an explanation of the word 'matriculated'

Change:

Matriculating at the university in late 1983

To:

Matriculating at the university in late 1983 Todegal (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2022

It states he is a current prime minister but he resigned 10 hours ago 86.177.10.35 (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
He has to stay as Prime Minister until a new Tory Party leader is elected. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
... or if the party agrees someone else as interim PM. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
And the chance of that happening is? All of them have resigned over the past few days! MadGuy7023 (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Not all of them - the likeliest option is that they would have Raab as interim PM. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Can't wait. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Largest number of resignations in a Premiership?

The lede already notes that the number of ministerial resignations was the largest in a 24-hour period, but I've heard comments that it's also the most for a single Prime Minister for their whole term of office. Is this supported by sources? — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 12:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2022 (2)

I wish to edit the information about Boris Johnson following his resignation as Prime Minister of the UK. 173.225.149.163 (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't put 'Outgoing', in the infobox

PLEASE, don't put "Outgoing" in his Prime Minister & Conservative leader entries. He's the incumbent until he actually resigns, which will be in October 2022. So, it would look rather silly to have 'Outgoing' there, for three months. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2022 (3)

I'd like to change 'Prime Minister of the United Kingdom' underneath the portrait to 'Conservative Member of Parliament' or 'E-Prime Minister of the United Kingdom'. RealTfA (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Boris Johnson remains Prime Minister until a new leader is chosen. — Czello 15:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

RealTfA Can you read? Aaron106 (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2022 (2)

He resigned Marissa TRS (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Amorality in the lead section

A recent addition of "amorality" has been made to the final paragraph of the lead section, giving examples of what Johnson's critics have accused him of. Is there consensus to add "amorality" to lying, elitism, cronyism and bigotry?

I've read numerous sources reporting Johnson being criticised for a "lack of integrity". But the specific criticism of "amorality" seems to be less common than critics questioning his integrity. Do we need to expand the list of things his critics accuse him of in the lead section, which should only be a summary? In the previous paragraph of the lead it's already stated that he has had accusations of cronyism. Does "cronyism" need to be repeated again in the final paragraph of the lead? In my view it's unnecessary repetition. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think amorality is necessary and given how subjective such a moral claim is, I think there'd need to be an exceptionally strong case made that's he's frequently called such by sources.
I'm responsible for the duplication of cronyism because when the new paragraph about controversies was added it was unclear what exactly the issue with COVID contracts was, so I made it more explicit by adding the wording used by the sub-article's lead ("accusations of cronyism involving") to aid readers unfamiliar with it. I think the duplication is fine in this case, as I believe it's also one of the main criticisms of Johnson, but I'm not set on the wording and open to other suggestions.
Also, JLo-Watson, why do you keep on re-adding the outdated and irrelevant "discuss" tag next to the (now sourced) sentence about Johnson's COVID response? We had a discussion about it at the time concerns about its sourcing were raised, sources from the body were added to the lead, and it's been sitting on the page uncontested without an active discussion since then. If you want to add the tag, you need to start a new talk page thread for it to link to, otherwise it's inappropriate. Jr8825 • Talk 00:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

We had a discussion - and the talk page discussion was not completed. It is clearly going to be controversial and contested to claim that Johnson’s Coronavirus response was “slow”. On what basis does this warrant a significant portion of the lede? JLo-Watson (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Which discussion do you think was left unresolved? This one? There have been several other past discussions on that wording and it seems to have survived them unscathed, and it's now directly cited within the lead (which is what that tag was originally about, if I recall correctly). "Discuss" isn't the correct tag if there's no relevant talk page discussion. Start a new thread first and add the tag to help people find the discussion. Or add a "disupted" tag if you really want someone else to start it for you, although it'd skip a few steps if you started it, so can begin by explaining why you think it's wrong. Jr8825 • Talk 01:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2022

Boris Johnson has tendered his resignation. 2A00:23C8:6F89:A801:D3B:86CE:F488:1114 (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The article already mentions this. He remains PM until a new leader is chosen. — Czello 18:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
He hasn't met the monarch & tendered his resignation as prime minister. So your edit request should be denied. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
But he reportedly resigned as leader of the Conservative Party. If he is acting leader he should be referred to as this. The page is written as if he didn't resign from leadership with immediate effect. 2001:4BC9:A46:BF35:CD7A:6AC0:69B5:EAF1 (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
It isn't with immediate effect. It only happens when a new leader is chosen. — Czello 07:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I see no sourcing to support the interpretation that he remains leader of the Tory party: see Talk:2022_United_Kingdom_government_crisis#Did_he_actually_resign? for a lengthier discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Mention of support for Ukraine in the lead?

The political editor of the Guardian today said this when reflecting on his premiership (my emphasis): "Johnson’s ardent fealty to Ukraine’s cause has been one of the defining features of the final months of his premiership, making him popular and well-known in the besieged country."[1] Should a brief sentence about this be added to the lead? Is there room? Or is it unnecessary? Jr8825 • Talk 16:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Stewart, Heather (7 July 2022). "Boris Johnson's resignation speech: what he said, and what he meant". The Guardian. Retrieved 7 July 2022.

I believe there is an argument it could be in the lede, but if it was included, I think other aspects of his premiership would also need to be included (for example, Health and Social Care Levy/National Insurance rise, COP26, Levelling Up policy etc). Otherwise, the main policies of his government that are included in the lede are essentially just Brexit and Covid; which fairly or unfairly, are the defining issues of his premiership. JLo-Watson (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Support for Ukraine is mentioned in the lead of Joe Biden's article, so I think it should be mentioned in the lead on this article as well. Both Joe Biden and Boris Johnson have donated billions of money to help pay towards weaponry and aid to Ukraine, and have both introduced sanctions on Russia. What exactly has Biden done differently to Johnson that means Ukraine is more worthy to be included in the lead of his article? The support for Ukraine has been mentioned multiple times in reliable sources as being a defining part of Johnson's premiership, and as such will likely be a key part of his "legacy" when he resigns. With this in mind, it should be in the lead of this article. --89.243.125.209 (talk) 11:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

missing: wallpaper gate

(or wallpaper-gate ?)

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22wallpaper+gate%22+%22Johnson%22+

--Präziser (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Too bad the list is headed by the Daily Mail. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

'Caretaker' term

It reads like he's been caretaker since 2019. It seems pretty pointless using a term or any term like caretaker. He's still the PM until he isn't.  — Calvin999 17:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it's pointless. If a caretaker like Dominic Raab had actually been appointed, then he could have been described as such, but not the incumbent.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
e/c Agree. Raab might have been (still might be) seen as a "caretaker", as Deputy. But this makes BoJo sound like the bumbling incompetent Norman Potter in the 1970s sitcom "Please Sir!".... well, actually, thinking about it... Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
If Raab was appointed prime minister? He would be prime minister, not caretaker prime minister. Best we avoid using such prefixes, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Couldn't they invent something for him? But I agree it's unlikely. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Multiple RS describe him using this term, which has been used by the cabinet Cambial — foliar❧ 10:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

According to the Institute for Government,[8] there are three scenarios in the UK where the government "acts in a caretaker capacity":

  1. During a general election campaign
  2. If a vote of no confidence is passed by the House of Commons
  3. If an election produces an unclear result

As none of those apply in this case, should we copy sloppy/sensationalist/biased political journalism and use the term in this article? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

On this morning's Today (just before 08.20) it sounded like James Cleverly had not seen that website. Or at least, if he had seen it, was exactly extending it to the currently situation, saying (a bit like a mantra) "the functions of government endure". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
There’s already a thread about this above. I think we should avoid original research about the meaning of terms and whether they apply, and follow the reliable sources. We should avoid referring to reliable sources with which we disagree in groundless derogatory terms to try to discredit them. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
We need to remember that although sources may be considered reliable for facts, they are unlikely to be neutral, and this applies particularly to politics in news media, most of which are politically aligned or support or oppose particular politicians. See WP:BIASED. It is our duty per WP:POV to call out bias where we see it in cited sources, regardless of whether we agree with it, or not (and I'm neutral on this, but want to make sure we are following the facts and not to just mimicking the inaccurate terminology often used for effect in biased sources). -- DeFacto (talk). 11:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd like to make a handy list here of all the sloppy/sensationalist/biased political journalism sources you've discovered so that we can avoid them. Was assuming less than 100 items. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
We’ve got The Evening Standard, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, BBC, ITV and Sky News – so all three major TV news broadcasters – not to mention the same charity you sought to rely on in your original research, all using the term "caretaker"; if any of the sources are biased they evidently agree on this point. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but this is an encyclopaedia, and we should strive for accuracy and clarity, avoiding such (deliberate?) ambiguity and bias. We could paraphrase to avoid confusion/conflation with the use of the same word that is used as a technical term for the three cases listed above. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
So, The Evening Standard, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, BBC, ITV, and Sky News all have "sloppy/sensationalist/biased political journalism" for using this term, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
There is no ambiguity and bias in this term. That’s why news organisations with quite different ideological positions, and a charity which you used as a source for the definition of the term, all used it. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
There may not be to you, but there clearly was to the editor who added it and linked it to that technical term. What is the problem you see with rephrasing it or using a synonym for clarity and disambiguation? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps it shouldn't be linked. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Nothing in that edit indicates that the editor clearly, or otherwise, used it to introduce ambiguity or bias. It looks like they did so because that’s the term multiple RS use. You’ve not indicated what you think the bias is; none is apparent. As I said, I think we should closely follow the sources. If there are multiple sources from a variety of ideological positions, including the major broadcasters, which use a different word to describe the situation, perhaps indicate what they are. Otherwise there is no reason to choose a synonym for the term that the RS agree on. @Martinevans123: I already removed the wikilink. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, perhaps that was the only problem. Or maybe that article simply needs updating, in the light of recent events. We know that WP is not WP:RS. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2022

Update "leaer" to "leader" in first paragraph 216.53.207.114 (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Resigned?

2022 United Kingdom government crisis says he has resigned, but this article says he hasn't. Jack Upland (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Note he hasn't resigned, he announced that he will resign. As of now he is still the prime minister. https://www.vox.com/2022/7/7/23198063/boris-johnson-prime-minister-resigns 69.113.236.26 (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Current phrasing is very wordy “ he announced his pending resignation on 7 July 2022, remaining at his positions until a new leader is elected”. He has announced he is resigning but will remain Leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister until a successor is appointed would be clearer. BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
He hasn't even done that. His speech made no mention of resigning. At this time he has stated no intention of resigning whatsoever. You have to be very careful with proven liars like the UK Prime Minister. It is not safe to believe what he says, nor what the newspapers report he has said. I still do not understand why both wikipedia and MSM are flagrantly misquoting him. Jiver2 (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
What I've heard seems like that he's resigned Leader of the Conservative Party, but still keep his Prime Minister seat until September, are there any opposite informations?

Moreover, I guess that we should temporarily convert Johnson's avatars at articles of the remain 2022 summits to File:Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg, e.g. at 2022 G20 Bali summit? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully the 1922 Committee will try and get his avatars to resign too... Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2022 (2)

My request to edit this wikipedia page is becuase i want to include details about how boris johnson resigned and information regarding his replacement depending on the conservative party also updated that until he is prime minister updating the wikipedia that he is no longer the prime minister of the uk. Keeps the boris johnson wikipedia updated to the latest news and infoamtion related to his resignation and infoamtion about what is going to happen next for boris johnson PatrykWidla001 (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Boris no longer leader of the Conservative Party

Sources: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62068930, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/07/07/uk-boris-johnson-resignation/, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/07/boris-johnson-to-resign-as-conservative-leader and https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/boris-johnson-cabinet-mps-prime-minister-chancellor-b2118104.html. Boris Johnson has resigned from the leadership and no longer has powers within the party (therefore is no longer leader, and should not be listed as incumbent). He however, is still the Prime Minister until the vacancy is leadership is filled and the sovereign appoints them as the new Prime Minister. Why is he still listed as the incumbent leader of the conservative party? UltraaaDev (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Do we have a source for who's now the interim leader? GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
As we know vanishing little about the internal Tory party procedures in these circumstances, it's not even clear if they have the concept of an interim leader. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
The Guardian says: "However, senior Conservative MPs are pushing back against the idea that Johnson should be allowed to stay in office for any longer and want to see an interim leader in place, such as Dominic Raab." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Interesting, in context that does lend some support to the idea that the party can have an interim leader, but it also supports the assertion that Boris remains leader of the party until either his successor is chosen or an interim leader is appointed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I read that as being about the leader of the country rather than of the party…? Bondegezou (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree this should be changed. He might be the caretaker PM until the vacancy is leadership is filled later this year, but he has resigned from his role as the leader of the Conservatives, so therefore should not be listed as the incumbent leader. --89.243.125.209 (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I also agree: remains PM, but is no longer leader. There's been a longer discussion of this at Talk:2022_United_Kingdom_government_crisis#Did_he_actually_resign? where others might wish to contribute. Bondegezou (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I checked the Conservative Party's official website & BoJo is still the leader. Indeed, he's still splashed all over the website. Any attempts to suggest otherwise, would require complete changes 'here' & at other related pages. You can't say one thing in the article's body & say the opposite in the article's infobox. I wonder if an RFC on this entire matter would be required? GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Chance are they're making the most of Boris until they have no choice but to remove him from the website when a new leader is elected. They likely won't update it until October as that's when Boris will step down from his PM role (which, given how fast things are going with three MPs including Rishi Sunak announcing PM bids, could be a bit earlier than October). The issue here is that it's technically untrue as Boris has stepped down as leader (but will remain as PM until October at the latest). I'm not sure what we can do to solve this, whether to wait until he's no longer PM or to tackle it now via "temporary PM, but no longer Conservative leader". It would be interesting to get further discussion here about what we should do. --89.243.125.209 (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I had a quick look at the website. It is full of pictures of Johnson. I didn't immediately come across text saying "Johnson is the leader of the party" or words to that effect, but I haven't been through every page! If anyone sees something specific, that would be useful. Best I could tell, however, the website hasn't even been updated in the last few days. Of course, WP:PRIMARY also applies, but a clear unambiguous, post-7 July statement on the website that Johnson is the party leader would settle matters for me (or indeed text saying "The leadership is currently vacant" or some such).
In the mean time, I note most of us agree with the conclusion that he is no longer leader, with one editor disagreeing. Input from further editors would be valuable. Bondegezou (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to state he is no longer leader in the infobox. It will have to be updated later in the year anyway when a new PM replaces him. --89.243.125.209 (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Ultimately I think we need to be realistic in that party websites don't update automatically and shouldn't be considered the definitive source for things like this. — Czello 18:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I see you're asking for more input. I wouldn't have any expectations from the party website. I believe this situation is analogous to Theresa May's departure, where she announced her resignation then stayed on both as leader and 'acting leader'. A brief summary can be found here: "I am today announcing that I will resign as leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party on Friday 7th June". I think you have a similar situation here, just without the date specified, and without the statement from the 1922 committee. All Boris did was announce an election, not a resignation, such is the informality in our politics. We need some way to say he has resigned, without saying what the current situation is, because absent some specific statement, we do not know the current situation. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
On that note, I recommend (per status quo) that he be described as still the party leader, until concrete evidence is provided to the contrary. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd agree with that. Someone recently pointed out somewhere that announcing a resignation is not the same as leaving your post. I would expect a statement at some point soon clarifying matters, probably in relation to the leadership contest. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
That’s a useful citation re May, zzuuzz, thanks. It’s a bit uncomfortable if we have to rely on an analogy rather than having citations about Johnson. But it all helps.Bondegezou (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

House of Commons briefing on the Conservative leadership election says, “If a vacancy occurs the leadership elections consists of two stages.” Or, put the other way around, given there is a leadership election, there must be a vacancy either now or imminently, implying Johnson is not or imminently will not be leader. It also then describes what happened with May, expanding on the points raised by zzuuzz. On 24 May 2019, May said she would resign as leader on 7 June. Nominations for the resulting leadership election closed on 10 June. That is, during the actual leadership election, there was no leader. It describes the same in 2005 when Howard resigned: during the leadership election, the leadership was vacant. Ergo, Johnson equally will not be leader during this leadership election. Bondegezou (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Until we hear otherwise from the Conservative Party itself. He's still party leader. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. There will be a vacancy soon. Both May and Howard announced a date for their resignations, and after that date were both explicitly retained as 'acting' or 'caretaker' leader of the Conservatives, until there was a new leader. We are not at that stage yet. The 1922 Committee is having a meeting on Monday, and you can expect some announcements from them late in the day. Boris will probably chip in again after that. A little patience and all will become clear. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Happy to wait a few days for clarity. I suggest we avoid saying things that are uncertain or doubtful, i.e. that fail WP:V, before full clarity emerges. Bondegezou (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

"a hundred different ways"

The New York Times today quotes Rory Stewart: "People have known that Boris Johnson lies for 30 years... He's probably the best liar we’ve ever had as a prime minister. He knows a hundred different ways to lie." I believe NYT is a WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Was there a dispute about what Stewart's personal opinion of Johnson might be? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Do we include material only when there is a dispute? Yes, that's his "personal opinion". Would we expect some kind of "official opinion" now he no longer has a government position? Perhaps we can quote only government ministers? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"after being elected as a Mayor of London"?

Boris Johnson was elected as the Mayor of London, as there's not more than one Mayor of London. Can this be fixed please? 89.243.125.209 (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I can't see where the article says this, so it may have been corrected already. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
It says it during the Mayor of London section of the article, as text describing the picture of Johnson's victory speech in 2008. The text states "Johnson gave a victory speech in City Hall after being elected as a Mayor of London". This just needs a simple fix, it should be corrected to "Johnson gave a victory speech in City Hall after being elected as the Mayor of London". --89.243.125.209 (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, corrected. (I was looking at the main text rather than the captions.) Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

"worst prime minister we have ever had"

Alastair Campbell has described Boris Johnson the worst prime minister we have ever had. Perhaps no surprise. But then Malcolm Rifkind said the same thing on Newsnight. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

While I agree, it's best to wait until he resigns officially (after the new leader is elected) before adding this to the lead. Like how the mention of scholars ranking Donald Trump as one of the worst US Presidents was not added to his article until after the Trump presidency had ended. But I definitely agree that Johnson will go down in history as one of the worst UK Prime Ministers as while he did do a few good things, he was far too riddled with scandal. Definitely worth mentioning in the article once Johnson is out of Number 10. --89.243.125.209 (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
It's hard to think how Alastair Campbell and Malcolm Rifkind would belong in any part of this article, never mind the lead. Trump's article cites the C-SPAN Presidential Historians Survey, which has been running for 20 years and surveys 142 presidential historians. I can't think of any similar UK enterprise, but I do know that Campbell and Rifkind aren't it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, there seems to be no such similar UK enterprise. So perhaps we dare not use the biased subjective opinions of fellow politicians? (Especially loony-left pinko agitators like Malcolm Rifkind?) Martinevans123 (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
While there isn't a similar UK enterprise, rankings are listed in the leads on several Prime Minister pages (e.g. Margret Thatcher's page says "A polarising figure in British politics, Thatcher is nonetheless viewed favourably in historical rankings and public opinion of British prime ministers.") If Johnson is ranked low in a survey in the future, then perhaps then we can add it to the article then. I think it's more than likely to assume that Johnson will be ranked low in rankings and in public opinion polls once he's out of Number 10, but I think we should wait for the next PM to enter office before adding this. --89.243.125.209 (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request

Leo Johnson is not currently listed as a sibling brother , just Jo. Leo should be added and linked. 86.152.243.220 (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Not notable? Assume you don't mean this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
He is mentioned in the "Childhood" section - A third child, Leo, was born in September 1967 - but he is not listed in the infobox because he isn't notable enough to have an article-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Greased piglet

The article only mentions the term "greased piglet" once from David Cameron, whereas a google search of his name and the term gives several hundread references. Shouldn't more be made of the fact that he is also known as the "greased piglet", and is called so by many of the world's media? Should almost be in the summary. 78.18.245.153 (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

See also Talk:Boris Johnson/Archive 9#Suggested addition re Greased Piglet. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Even good sources as diverse as Bloomberg (Yet Johnson, whose nicknames include "Teflon" and the "greased piglet", clings on to power) to Vanity Fair (Later, this ability to bluster through rules, to survive where others would fall, earned Johnson a reputation as a "Teflon" politician who was nicknamed the Greased Piglet. But, as prime minister, the mythology began to fray) to The Hindu (But the luck of a man once likened to a "greased piglet" for his ability to escape controversies finally ran out, after a slew of high-profile resignations from his scandal-hit government), say it is a nickname/associated term.

Or, is such inclusion of the term considered inappropriate for Wikipedia? 78.18.245.153 (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting source... "In Hinduism, the boar-headed Varaha is venerated as an avatar of the god Vishnu." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
The Hindu is probably the highest-grade media source in India (as I understand it) - even they use the term? Is the current situation because wider use of the term as his nickname would violate Wikipedia policies (if so, then no problem)? It does seem at odds with many other leading global media outlets who directly state that the term is a nickname of Johnson, and consider it notable enough that they include it in their briefs on Johnson? 19:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.18.245.153 (talk)
But it's hardly getting blanket coverage by the press, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

If you google "Greased Piglet" + "Johnson", you get every high-quality UK newspaper with very recent use (there are more if you go back further) ...

.... and if you look outside of the UK, you find recent examples in the newspaper of record for many countries, including:

I could increase the above list many-fold, but would it not already constitute blanket coverage (in both the UK and abroad). 78.18.245.153 (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Would the term meet the criteria to have its own Wikipedia page, like Thanks, Obama, Let's Go Brandon, or Maggie Out. There are as many references to Johnson as the "Greased piglet", as there are for these other articles? Would people be happier with it that way? If someone would start it, I will fill it out with these refs. 78.18.245.153 (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
We do have Piggate, etc. But that was a much more notable "scandal". This is just an insulting nickname? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
The articles for Thanks, Obama, Let's Go Brandon, or Maggie Out are also all pejorative, but they are Wikipedia pages? The enormous quantum of references overwhelmingly support "Greased piglet" as a notable term in relation to Johnson. I understand that the editors of this page don't want to include it, but it is quite a gap in the coverage of the topic (given the number of references using the term in relation to Johnson). If you would start the page I will fill it in and am confident it will survive any deletion discussion. 78.18.245.153 (talk) 09:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
It would be a good test. I have now red linked greased piglet in the quote. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks and again, totally understand the stance of the editors on his page, as it is a well-written article and this is a very pejorative term, however, the scale (and quality) of references is so large that it should be covered somewhere. If someone would just start the page, and notify me, I will fill it in. thank you in advance. 09:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.18.245.153 (talk)
Another editor reverted my red link addition saying "need to be careful with links in quotes per MOS:LINKSTYLE". Personally I don't see a problem. I thought this was the quickest way. So I have now added a separate statement with {cn} tags and started the article greased piglet. I guess the claim could just be removed while the new stand-alone article is created. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Appreciate that Martinevans123, and will help expand that new article. thank you. 78.18.245.153 (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD

@Jr8825: You reverted my edits shortening the lead length, in spite of the two templates pointing out WP:RECENTISM and WP:TOOLONG. There was no long-standing information that was removed. The only information that was removed was a the statement about scientists and lockdown however, as described by the main text, the issues over scientific advice were not the prevailing controversy over the COVID-19 pandemic for Johnson, especially for a WP:RS perspective. The second point was over clarity but I would rather you offered your own edits to improve clarity rather than opting for a straight revert. Alex (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Update to say that I have added explanations of the government crisis and mass resignations, both of which were absent prior to my edits. I have also moved refs from the lead to the main text per WP:LEADCITE. Alex (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, you've removed "pending" & "still party leader" from the lead. I've restored "pending", as he's still the prime minister and party leader & therefore obviously hasn't resigned yet. He didn't see the monarch & hand in his resignation. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

He’s still PM. Your claim he is still party leader appears to be your personal opinion and unrelated to sourcing or the views of other editors, as per the lengthy discussion above. Bondegezou (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Please, let the Conservative Party make that decision. To date, its website still has BoJo on it. GoodDay (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2022

Johnson resigned as Conservative Party leader so please remove the incumbent bar. Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear that he is no longer leader of the Conservatives. He didn't state that he had left the post when he announced the future leadership election,[9] and the day after, the party confirmed he was still the current party leader.[10] Please review other discussions going on this page, (as well as this one, and this one, and this one) and help work towards a consensus. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

"He announced his pending resignation on 7 July 2022 and will remain as prime minister until a new party leader is elected."

Could this sentence in the lead be changed to "He announced his pending resignation on 7 July 2022 and will remain as prime minister until a new party leader is elected on 5 September" - this is the date his premiership will end. 89.243.125.209 (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with that change as:
  1. The new leader could be decided earlier if candidates step down.
  2. Even if the new leader isn't known until the evening of 5 September, the changeover of prime minister (visits to see the Queen, etc.) will likely not happen until the following day.
So we cannot say when it will be for sure. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Good points! Thank you for this explanation. --89.243.125.209 (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

"Brexity Hezza"

Why would Lord Heseltine, in 2019, want to make it clear in The Guardian that Johnson had "no right to call himself a one-nation Conservative"? The reason is that he was responding to reports in The Sun, here, that "He told several Cabinet ministers that he’s “basically a Brexity Hezza”. I think the reason ought to be provided. The Sun may be a deprecated source at Wikipedia, but it did say that. And Heseltine did, very openly, respond to it. This is the context for Heseltine's remarks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

That's not what you wrote at first though. You wrote (in Wiki's voice) "after Johnson had told cabinet colleagues he was "basically a Brexity Hezza"". And that is what I reverted - as it was WP:SYNTH based on unconfirmed hearsay from The Sun (a deprecated source) as reported in an opinion piece in The Guardian. The Sun is deprecated because it is unreliable, so stuff from it cannot be assumed to be true, even if it is relayed via an opinion piece in The Guardian.
Your rewording on your second attempt, "reacting to reports in The Sun, that ]ohnson had told cabinet colleagues he was "basically a Brexity Hezza"", was less troublesome, as it was supported by Heseltine's opinion piece. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Why do you still find that addition "troublesome"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Why does this article's short description say "Former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom?"

He hasn't resigned yet. 89.243.125.209 (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks — Czello 12:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Public image page

Please see Draft:Public image of Boris Johnson for those interested. This could be one potential solution to the ongoing length issue, and then the "Public image" and "Reception" sections in this page could be summarised. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this separate article is a good idea! Definitely would solve the ongoing length issue. Would be interested to see what others think. --89.243.125.209 (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Even without the length issues that this article has, I think that having a separate article on the public image of 'Boris' is a good idea. QueenofBithynia (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I could also see doing the same for the Prime Minister section, having some summarizing that covers the overall highlights here, and moving the full in-depth details to a separate article. Zinnober9 (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, would like to note the article Premiership of Boris Johnson exists (which covers 'Boris' ongoing, though soon to be not ongoing, tenure as PM) exists. Definitely agree that the in-depth information relating to Johnson's tenure as PM should be moved from this article to the premiership one, with this article only having the overall highlights. This, along with the public image page, would help massively with the article's length issue. --89.243.125.209 (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

'Caretaker government' or '"caretaker" government'?

That is: should the word "caretaker" be put in quotes, or not.

Per Paul Mason, writing in The New Statesman, recently, and supported by this 'explainer' from the Institute for Government, the UK de facto definition of what is called a "caretaker" government is taken from the Cabinet Manual. And that, he says, describes them being the case "after a no-confidence vote, during an election, and during the formation of a government after an election", but not "when a prime minister loses the support of his own MPs but will not resign from office". So he says what we have now "is not a “caretaker” administration but a zombie government".

Sure many 'reliable' sources have used the term without quotes, but as a pejorative rather than as a factual descriptor.

I propose we put it in quotes, or add a footnote explaining the discrepancy between our use and its uses for previous governments where it has been used in the technical sense per the Cabinet Manual. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Your talk section heading is slightly misleading. I agree that we should not use the phrase <caretaker government> which does not have wide support from RS. The opinion piece from the hapless Paul Mason in the statesman cannot be used on this page as it has no secondary coverage to demonstrate it is noteworthy. It is not a RS. The charity web page you refer to is about the phrase <caretaker government>. As to your claim that it is only used a pejorative: it doesn't even rise to the level of orignal research; merely your groundless assertion of no merit. Your original research does not trump multiple RS, and the sources remain reliable, per the site-wide consensus at WP:RSN, whether you put the word 'reliable' in quotes or not. Which reliable sources?
The same charity you quote from; Evening Standard; The Scotsman; The Independent; BBC; UK & EU; Bloomberg; Sky News; Sky News Australia; Yahoo! News; The Daily Telegraph; ABC Australia; ITV; Kings College, London; Reuters; The Guardian; Al-Jazeera etc etc.
Perhaps you can explain why you don't wish to follow the reliable sources. We are not using the phrase <caretaker government> so the charity you refer to cannot be used for an explainer. Your original research has no place on the article. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting using those sources in the article, but they are valid in informing this discussion. The word is ambiguous in this context, so it should be avoided or its context made very clear. We don't have to copy vocabulary from sources, especially when it is (deliberately?) misleading. Indeed we are encouraged to paraphrase, and I think that's what we need to do here to avoid misleading readers (and other editors who have several times linked it to "Caretaker government") into thinking this is a caretaker government, in the commonly used sense. The article would be clearer without it if we cannot agree to put it in quotes. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The word is not ambiguous. The major English dictionaries relevant here give 1.1 as modifier Holding power temporarily; ADJECTIVE [ADJECTIVE noun A caretaker government or leader is in charge temporarily until a new government or leader is appointed. 2. (modifier) holding office temporarily; interim]; 2 as adj temporary; stopgap.
This is exactly the meaning it is used for. Please explain what other meaning the ambiguity you claim you perceive could otherwise indicate. If the meaning is "A person employed to look after a building" I have little further to comment other than to say the idea people will confuse that meaning is absurd. Those are the only two meanings in the Chambers Harrap & Oxford Dictionaries.
This *is* a caretaker government, in the commonly used sense. That is presumably why some sources (but not nearly so many) have used the phrase <caretaker government>. It’s the sense of the phrase caretaker government described by Collins Dictionary and widely used around the world. You are implicitly claiming that a narrow technical sense of the phrase that you have done some original research about is the common sense of the phrase. It is not. The only reason we ought not to use the phrase <caretaker government> is because it does not have the wide support from RS that the word <caretaker> clearly does. Over-eager editors adding poorly-supported wikilinks is not a reason to fail to reflect reliable sources. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
In the UK the term is ambiguous. It has a dictionary definition and a technical definition related to the UK's 'constitution' and the way that governments are constituted. The latter does not include governments with a prime minister who is soon to be replaced as the leader of his party. Whatever your own OR determines or imagines that the sources mean by it (and I noticed some put it in quotes), it is still different to what is meant by it in parliamentary parlance. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
A caretaker government is one that is constitutionally limited in what it can do. For example, a government that has lost a confidence vote becomes a caretaker government and cannot demand an election if there is a viable alternative. Recent examples occurred in Pakistan and British Columbia. That does not apply to the current government. Johnson's limitation on his powers were not imposed by the constitution, but by his colleagues. While they may call him a caretaker PM, it's by analogy. So it should be in quotes and it's meaning explained and not linked to caretaker government. TFD (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Again, applying your own original research as to what constitutes a caretaker government is not that interesting. Your narrow definition is not supported by sources, is not the dictionary definition of the term, and is not how it is described in WP.
I was actually basing the argument above on the source position a couple of weeks ago when DeFacto last raised this. It has evidently now changed, so there is good reason to use the phrase <caretaker government> and wikilink it:
Johnson’s caretaker government must act with care in a worsening energy crisis The same Institute for Government charity referred to by DeFacto above to seek a definition of what a caretaker government is
Boris Johnson still has plans for his last weeks in office The Economist
Boris Johnson wins no-confidence vote days after being ousted The Financial Times
The race to replace Boris Johnson is wide open CNBC
Race to Succeed Boris Johnson Kicks Off as Sunak Makes Move Bloomberg UK
policy priorities for the next prime minister British Medical Journal
All use the phrase caretaker government to describe the current government. There was evidently some discussion as to the constitutional implications of Boris Johnson being in such a role. Given the nebulous nature of UK constitutional law, there is certainly no reason why formal limitation on powers, rare in any case, would be a criterion. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The word is clearly ambiguous - different readers are obviously interpreting it differently. And we cannot agree what the sources mean by it, so we need to explain it, or use less ambiguous terminology, or omit it, for the benefit of our users. Why would we want to mislead them? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces, yep, I agree. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
We most certainly are allowed to use original research on talk pages in deciding what goes into articles. The Cambridge Dictionary defines a caretaker government as "a government that has power for a short period of time until a new one is chosen."[11] The abstract for "The Challenge of Periods of Caretaker Government in the UK" says "Caretaker periods mark the transitions between the termination of one government and the formation of another. Caretaker conventions exist to ensure that the country is never left without a fully functioning executive, and to prevent a government whose democratic mandate has expired from making decisions that will inappropriately bind the incoming government."
Clearly the mandate of the government has not terminated and there are no constitutional restrictions on its power. When sources use the term "caretaker" then, they are using it in a novel, non-standard way. We are allowed to conduct that type of original research.
TFD (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
DeFacto: Contrary to your claim about a use in the Cabinet Manual, which was first created in 2011, the Cabinet Manual does not contain the word "caretaker" "care taker" nor the phrase "caretaker government".
If you have a source which says the current Johnson situation is not a caretaker capacity, or not a caretaker government in "X" sense, and this is why etc, by all means bring it here for the benefit of this thread and potential use in clarification in the article. If we add something to the article by way of explanation to guard against an ambiguity or wrong interpretation which you assert, but provide no reliable evidence for, that explanation needs to be supported by reliable sources. Catherine Haddon, from the same charity you refer to above, made some comments in the observer about the current situation. She refers to this as a caretaker period.
TFD: I've not suggested original research should not be used on talk. The dictionary definition you cite is nearly identical to the three dictionary definitions I posted in comment above. It fits the current situation. Schleiter and Belu's research article is clearly a reliable source. But it's from seven years ago. It does not mention Johnson's name. There is current relevant academic comment:

Peter Hennessy, the constitutional historian and crossbench peer, calls this “a classic example of the British constitution having been knitted together for fresh contingencies”, but also an area where this is much personal leeway. As always with the British premiership, everything depends on the incumbent behaving well,” Hennessy said. “So if they want to have a bit of an away day for the last few weeks in No 10, there’s not much you can do to stop them.” However, anyone worried about a vacuum in government should be reassured, he added, by the fact this caretaker period is not so different from what happens in the weeks after a general election is called, Hennessy added.

You have twice referred to "consitutional" restrictions on government power. Your belief that this is a necessary characteristic of a PM acting in a caretaker capacity is not supported by evidence. It's clear that the lack of support from sitting parliamentarians in his own party is limiting Johnson's personal power, which is what is relevant here.
I am not opposed to an explanatory note stating something about the current caretaker role, but it needs to be supported by RS describing the current situation, not by articles published in 2014 about the "caretaker period" (a different term) following an election. Clearly there are multiple journalists and academics, aware of the phrase "caretaker period", who believe the term "caretaker" appropriate to the current situation as applied to Johnson. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@Cambial Yellowing, not my claim, it was from the secondary source I cited, and it aligns with what the Institute for Government says. Yes, I know they're run as a charity, but so what? Do you refer to Full Fact, the RNLI, Oxfam, and Heart Research UK as "the charity", rather than doing them the courtesy of using their proper name too? And are you condoning original research for talkpage discussion now?
As I said before, the reason for change is to make it unambiguous and not potentially misleading for readers. To ensure a neutral point of view if you like, to avoid the charge that it is deliberately misleading. The easiest way, I think, would be to simply drop the sensationalist press "caretaker" editorialisation. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
When I write your claim, I mean it in the usual way - i.e. "the claim that you made". You made the claim about the Cabinet Manual in the last sentence of the comment you wrote in this diff. If you're concerned about the level of what you call courtesy that is afforded to a charity, I suggest writing to them to soothe their feelings. There is no evidence that the word under discussion is sensationalist, nor that it is editorialisation. There is ample evidence, already supplied, that the opposite is true - i.e. its use by the more highbrow broadsheet news organisations and other serious current affairs publications. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Your personal opinion versus mine, and deadlock. The key point though is to avoid ambiguity for readers, and it is now clearer than ever that 'caretaker' has two distinct meanings in the context in which it is used here. The solution is to remove it or replace it with a clear explanation of the situation. Why not? Why would we favour ambiguity over clarity? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Your invented framing is incorrect. I’ve referred to more than fifteen reliable sources relevant to the article subject. You’ve referred to an opinion piece and a charity webpage that makes no mention of article subject and that was created before he became PM. Why would you want to avoid following reliable sources? What other term for this specific situation, which at least one scholar of government says is in fact not so different from what you call a "distinct" meaning, is supported by a variety of the better quality news sources? Papers like the FT and the Telegraph evidently have no concern with the supposed ambiguity you claim concern over. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
The Conservative party (last time I checked) still has a clear majority in the House of Commons & doesn't need to face a general election until 2024/25. Doesn't seem they're limited, in what they can & can't do as the governing party. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Following the 2017 British Columbia general election, the governing Liberal Party was reduced to a minority and then lost a vote of confidence. The premier asked the lieutenant governor to call a new election, but instead she fired the premier and replaced her with the opposition leader. In the 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis, the PM lost a vote of confidence and asked the president to call a new election, but instead he fired the PM and replaced him with another MP.

In 1926 King–Byng affair, the Canadian Liberal Party was reduced to a minority and the PM was replaced by the opposition leader, although he had not lost a vote of confidence.

In the first two cases, the loss of confidence reduced the government to caretaker status. In the third case, it was caused by calling an election. The consequence was that the head of state no longer accepted advice from the government that it would have accepted were it not a caretaker government. The advice that the head of state will not accept is not limited to whom should be first minister or calling an election, but anything that a successor government might object to.
Where is the evidence that any of this applies in this case? If cabinet approves an appointment to the House of Lords or a bishopric, will the Queen be obliged to deny it because of Johnson's "caretaker" status?
There are constitutional limits on the powers of caretaker governments, but no evidence this applies to the current one. So as I said above, the term caretaker is being used in a non-standard way, and needs to be explained.
TFD (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
You call the use "non-standard" - that's your preferred terminology which you again offer without evidence. A good source, in fact the usual source in any language, for what is considered the "standard" meaning of a term is a dictionary. I reference three of the major English dictionaries relevant here. All suggest the usage in recent news coverage is the standard meaning i.e. "in charge temporarily until a new government or leader is appointed" as per my post above. You pointed to another dictionary definition. It says the same thing.
You say there is another meaning. While it is evidently more arcane than the standard meaning, I don't dispute its existence. The quote from the academic historian of British government Peter Hennessy that I reference above indicates that some expert scholars believe the distinction between the situation described by e.g. Schleiter and Belu, and Johnson's situation, is not as sharp as you imply. If an explanation in efn can ensure that readers do not mistakenly take the word, used by at least twenty-two reliable sources to describe Johnson's situation, to mean the technical meaning you attach to it, I support doing so. But unlike here on talk, content in the article, including efn, must be supported by reliable sources. So if there is a reliable source that discusses the widespread use of the term to describe Johnson's current situation, and the senses in which it does or does not apply, by all means paste it here so we can all agree on a suitable and concise paraphrasing of that explanation to assist readers. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
The constitutional expert Anne Twomey explains caretaker government in her book "The Veiled Sceptre: Reserve Powers of Heads of State in Westminster Systems." (See "Caretaker Conventions.") Governments have caretaker status when they do not have the support of Parliament, viz., when they have lost a vote of confidence, they have not yet obtained the confidence of Parliament, or they have dissolved Parliament, pending an election. During this period, "caretaker conventions" apply, specifically that they cannot do anything that a future government may not agree with, such as appointments or new policy initiatives. (p.503) The head of state, in this case the Queen, would then refuse requests prohibited by the convention and any unconstitutional orders they did allow could be nullified by judicial review.
The term caretaker government was popularized when Churchill resigned in 1945, but agreed to remain as caretaker PM leading a caretaker government until the election.
I do not question that one could call Johnson a caretaker PM leading a non-caretaker government. But that is a non-standard use of the term, at least by constitutional experts. The government has not lost a vote of confidence and in fact expects to continue governing until 2025.
When we use a term in way different from that of constitutional experts, we need to explain what we mean by it. Without knowing the circumstances, if a reasonably informed reader was told that Johnson was a caretaker PM, they would assume that his government lacked the confidence of parliament and was restricted in what it could do. We therefore need to explain what we mean by "caretaker" PM. I have never seen the term used in this way before. Have you?
TFD (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
On further reflection, even if Johnson were a caretaker PM in the sense defined in expert sources, we should probably explain what we meant by that per WP:JARGON. TFD (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Mention of Minister for the Union in lead?

As the creator of the Minister for the Union, Johnson is the first Prime Minister to adopt the title. Surely the Minister for the Union is worthy of a mention in the lead? 89.243.125.209 (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. It's an ex officio office with little independent importance, like his other offices Minister for the Civil Service and First Lord of the Treasury.
In fact, I think it should be removed from the infobox. Leontrooper (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree - why is the role even in the infobox? I would support its removal. JLo-Watson (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I have come to agree with these points. It has since been removed. --89.243.125.209 (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Conservative party leader

I've looked at the Leader of the Conservative Party (UK) page & apparently he resigned as party leader on July 26, 2022. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Do we have any reliable sources which back this up? I have seen the BBC link which quotes a Number 10 spokesperson on the Tory leader page but it doesn’t exactly seem reliable / certain. On what basis do we actually know he is no longer Tory leader? How do we not know that he hasn’t just done what Cameron did and continued in post or what May did in becoming Acting leader immediately after her resignation statement, for example? It seems like a weak basis to assume the leadership is entirely vacant (even if, de facto, it is). JLo-Watson (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

All we have is varying interpretations of "he's resigned". EddieHugh (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The Tory constitution has no provision for interim leaders. While some parties have an automatic succession if a leader dies or resigns, the Tories do not.[12] I notice Johnson is not listed on the "Party Structure and Organisation" If Johnson is no longer leader, he lacks the power to appoint and dismiss top party officials. It makes sense that he would resign, while Cameron and May did not. That they call him a "caretaker PM" shows that party has lost faith in him.
So while we cannot confirm Johnson has resigned, there is no evidence that he is still leader and therefore we should accept sources that say he has resigned.
TFD (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
That's an interpretation of "he's resigned". He's not listed in archived versions of "Party Structure and Organisation" either (I looked at Jan 2022). There are lots of sources for "he's resigned", but not many stating "he's not the leader". These are not the same statement. It won't matter soon, but it would be good to get a properly sourced account of when when he ceased/ceases to be leader. EddieHugh (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I give up. Now we've got it in this bio, that he's still the Conservative party leader, which now contradicts the pages Leader of the Conservative Party (UK) and Conservative Party (UK), which have the party leadership vacant. GoodDay (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

We have a clear BBC report saying No. 10 said he has resigned as party leader. Arguments above are pure WP:OR. Wikipedia is based on reliable source reporting, not on editor speculation and interpolation. Bondegezou (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
It's not clear at all, and it's not first hand, it is based on stuff about Lord Cruddas taken from the Times, which is informed by piece about Johnson not wanting to leave in the Telegraph. What we need, to be able to assert that he is no longer the leader, is reliable sources saying he in no longer the leader. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree re. DeFacto that it is not clear that Johnson is no longer Leader. A very small quote from a No. 10 press officer on a BBC news page is insufficient to confirm Johnson is no longer Conservative leader.

Moreover, on a slightly different point, I distinctly remember a press release from the 1922 Committee after May’s resignation which called her the “Acting Leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party”, which is perhaps why there is a N.B. on her infobox which refers to her as the acting leader during the 2019 Conservative leadership contest. JLo-Watson (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Let me go through the various claims above one by one.
JLo-Watson first argued that Boris Johnson's spokesperson specifically answering this question about Boris Johnson's status doesn’t exactly seem reliable / certain. I am baffled as to how Boris Johnson's spokesperson specifically answering this question about Boris Johnson's status can be anything other than exactly what we wanted to clear this all up. Of course it's reliable.
The Four Deuces wants to overrule a RS directly addressing this question by instead trying to interpret him/herself what the party's constitution says. That is a clear violation of WP:PRIMARY.
DeFacto has misread the source. This is not based on stuff about Lord Cruddas. The BBC article first discusses Cruddas and then says, "in response a No 10 spokeswoman said that Johnson has resigned as party leader and "set out his intention to stand down as PM when the new leader is in place"." So, this comes from a "No 10 spokeswoman" (i.e. Johnson's spokeswoman). It makes a clear distinction between Johnson having resigned as leader and not yet having resigned as PM (dealing with EddieHugh's concern about interpretation).
JLo-Watson usefully reminds us of what happened when May resigned. As per this impeccable source, May resigned as party leader before the leadership contest to replace her took place and while remaining PM. (The Four Deuces claim that May didn't resign as party leader is mistaken.) Johnson has done the same: resigned as party leader, while remaining PM.
We have Johnson's own spokesperson explicitly answering questions about Johnson's status as leader. That answer is clear that he is no longer leader of the party, while remaining PM. Bondegezou (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
It's not at all clear; it's all based on interpretations of "resigned". It might mean he's no longer leader; it might mean something else. The brief BBC mention doesn't have a spokesperson making a clear distinction between the two; only the second part quotes that spokesperson. Until we get multiple reliable sources stating unambiguously that he's no longer leader, we're guessing. This isn't worth arguing about as it won't matter in a few weeks, but if we're going to be formal, then WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BURDEN apply: this is contentious and, considering the profile of the subject, poorly sourced. EddieHugh (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
There are dozens upon dozens of articles saying Johnson "has resigned" where there is an interpretative difficulty because they are ambiguous as to whether "resigned" means he's stepped down straight away or at some future time. However, this BBC report is explicitly about whether Johnson is currently leader and it has Johnson's spokesperson answering the discussion. That the spokesperson makes a distinction between not being party leader and still being PM helps further clarify that: that part of the BBC report is paraphrased and part is a direct quote is not an obstacle to us using it. Calling this a poor source is laughable: it's Johnson's spokesperson answering the question, as reported by the BBC.
WP:V of course applies here, if you we're going to be formal. You cannot verify that Johnson is currently party leader, ergo the article shouldn't say he is. I've suggested wording before that ducks the question to prevent us violating WP:V. If you're in a state of uncertainty, edit the article to not be certain. Personally, I remain baffled as to why some editors are so resistant to a nice, clear, reputable source specifically addressing the question. Bondegezou (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Guardian article with a fuller quote. Bondegezou (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Huff Post as well. Bondegezou (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
The Times has tweeted about it. It's in the Evening Standard, LBC, Sky, The Herald, Telegraph. Bondegezou (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
They all seem to be based on the original Telegraph story too. The "fuller quote" is identical to the one reported by the Telegraph as: Responding to Lord Cruddas's comments, a Number 10 spokesman told The Telegraph: "The Prime Minister has resigned as party leader and set out his intention to stand down as PM when the new leader is in place". -- DeFacto (talk). 16:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
@Bondegezou, no, I did not misread anything, but you seem to have misread my post. BBC New's story is second or third hand. The original is in the Telegraph as I said, in an article about Cruddas, and it was the Telegraph that Downing Street responded to. This was then reported in the Times, and then picked up by BBC News. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I doubt the Telegraph got it first and everyone copied them. I presume rather that the spokeswoman talked to all the press in a briefing at once. Whichever, it doesn’t make a difference. You agree we have a first hand report of what the spokeswoman said. If you want to use the Telegraph citation instead of the BBC one, go ahead. Bondegezou (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
You have it the wrong way around. I do not "want[] to overrule a RS directly addressing this question by instead trying to interpret him/herself what the party's constitution says." Instead, I looked at what the constitution says in order to determine whether the claim in reliable sources that Johnson resigned on July 7, 2022 is credible. That is specifically allowed in talk page discussions. There is no violation of WP:PRIMARY to consult primary sources to determine if secondary sources are correct.
Sorry if I was "mistaken" on whether or not May resigned as leader. I relied on what JLo-Watson posted above, rather than checking for myself. They wrote, "what May did in becoming Acting leader immediately after her resignation statement." [01:37, 29 July 2022]
TFD (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
My apologies. The Four Deuces, I had misread what you said earlier. Bondegezou (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Can we at least have the 3 pages-in-question, consistent? GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Consistency is always important so I fully agree with this. Personally I'd wait until Johnson steps down as PM in September before putting him as the former Conservative party leader, this would make things a lot less complicated and avoid contradictions in other articles. --89.243.125.209 (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I've restored Johnson to the other two pages, with edit-notes not to change to 'vacant', until the matter is settled here. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Good job! Hope this takes care of things. --89.243.125.209 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Not remotely. The articles are now in clear contravention of WP:V because a couple of editors think they know better than the reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Recommend we leave it as he's still the leader & open up an RFC 'here'. Whatever the result 'here', would thus be applied to the other two pages. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. And let's not forget he'll step down as PM in September, better to wait until then before wording his tenure as PM and Tory leader in the past tense. --88.108.44.36 (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Party

He hosted many party’s during covid Chabee09 (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. That is fully covered in the article section "Partygate scandal", as well as in the separate article Partygate. Bishonen | tålk 10:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC).
I'm not sure he hosted any, but he got caught up in an event that the media characterised as one, and that is covered in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
He was "ambushed by a cake". Not his fault of course... Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Readable prose size

Should any material in the article be divided, or should the tag be removed? It's certainly a "high-profile article" and I think its size is justified. -Adam (DeaconShotFire)TALK 17:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Objectively, it's WP:TOOBIG: 126 kB (20391 words) "readable prose size". Once he's no longer PM, cutting content should be much less controversial. EddieHugh (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Not objectively. Nevertheless, yes -- I imagine there'll be attempts to downsize once he's out of office. -Adam (DeaconShotFire)TALK 18:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I've removed it because as far as I can tell no one is currently bothered about its size, and there've been no discussions other than this one (which hasn't gained traction.) -Adam (DeaconShotFire)TALK 15:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Public image of Boris Johnson has just been created using content from the Public image and Reception sections, so content can be spun off into there or summarised. The media depictions section can probably be removed from this page altogether as it now fits better in the public image page. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2022

Change the fourth lead paragraph sentence “…led to a mass resignation of ministers from his government” to “led to a mass resignation of members of the government”

The mass resignations were not exclusive to ministers nor is the government Johnson’s. 2A00:23C7:DA0B:3901:20E8:22BA:BE29:CD76 (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Infobox content

About two years ago, an RFC on office infoboxes was held. The result was, 'do not' add successors, until they'v taken office. Therefore, stop adding Truss as Johnson's prime ministerial successor, until she's appointed. The RFC was against using 'designate', 'elect', etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boris_Johnson/Archive_9&oldid=1110004726"