Talk:Boris Johnson/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Lying in lead

Latest comment: 2 years ago98 comments14 people in discussion

@Spy-cicle: You've reverted this twice now but without offering any explanation. Can you please explain why you do not think that he has been accused of lying and why this isn't worthy of mentioning in the lead? If you think we need better sourcing, here are a couple of extra ones not cited at the moment: [1] [2]. SmartSE (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Has not every PM (and even politician) been accused of lying at one point or another? Shouldn't we be including labels there that are more, uh, Boris-specific? — Czello 15:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Just because he hasn't exactly bucked the trend, doesn't mean it's not (sickeningly) notable? I guess Category:Politicians who have never lied would be an oxymoron (unlike Boris, who is just a regular moron)? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Czello: I don't particularly see the relevance of that, but even so, Johnson has been described by an expert on political lying as: "I have never encountered a senior British politician who lies and fabricates so regularly, so shamelessly and so systematically as Boris Johnson."[3]. SmartSE (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, it's not the lying that's notable in itself, it's what he's lied about. Oops, sorry, what he's been accused of lying about. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

My observation is that although there seem to editors queuing up to add over simplified (out of context, or even misrepresented) summaries of 'sourced' criticism, allegations of wrongdoing, etc., there do not seem to be so many that accept their responsibility to also add the known context, or even accept, that [many|most|all] also have rebuttals, innocent explanations, valid excuses, or other mitigations or explanations or proponents of the opposite view [usually|often|sometimes] given in the same source.

I think the same applies here. An over simplified summary in the lead wrt allegations of 'lying' would not pass the strict Wiki WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:VER policies. Read that BBC article cited just above (as support for saying he has been accused of lying) and I think you will also find plenty of support for qualifying it with "but he does not". -- DeFacto (talk). 15:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, the rebuttals. If Boris had actually admitted lying. that really would be much more notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Not just the lying, though. Along with our own dear Alastair Campbell, The Sydney Morning Herald describes him as "the worst possible PM at the worst possible time" (also has an inspired cartoon depiction there). Just sayin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, per WP:ONUS, the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, not me so you can drop the attitude. Next it violates WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE nor is it given any context. Give me a 21st century prime minister who has not been accused of lying by their political opponents. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 18:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Is there a tally on the fib-o-meter somewhere? Other 21st century Prime Ministers exit? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Well I was being BOLD in adding it but you reverted it with the vague justification "Rv, not like this" and then did so again merely mentioning your previous revert. I'm not sure what attitude it is that I need to drop? It is just summarising all of these mentions of him being accused of being a liar that are already in the article and which are mentioned as much, or even more than elitism, cronyism, and bigotry (the other allegations in the lead):

Livingstone called Johnson a "bare-faced liar".

Polly Toynbee referred to him as a "jester, toff, self-absorbed sociopath and serial liar"

a deeply polarising figure, cherished by many older Conservatives but viewed by others as a serial liar

Howard asked Johnson to resign as vice-chairman and shadow arts minister for publicly lying

On 12 September, Johnson denied lying to the Queen over suspension of the parliament

"I have never encountered a senior British politician who lies and fabricates so regularly, so shamelessly and so systematically as Boris Johnson"

In addition to the extra sources I've already mentioned, there is Is Boris Johnson a liar? in The Atlantic and Bungling, lying and sleaze catch up with Britain’s government from The Economist. Then we have Boris Johnson “has demonstrated himself to be liar”, according to SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford. Similarly Dawn Butler made the same allegations and was supported by Starmer who called him "the master of untruth and half-truths". Clearly arguments based on BLP, and VER are spurious and the only possible argument not to include this is WP:WEIGHT but I wager that is in fact a violation of WEIGHT not to include this when clearly so many sources have accused him of lying. Whether we believe this to be true or not is irrelevant and nor is it relevant whether or not the sources end up concluding he is or is not a liar. All that is proposed is that he has been accused of it. Also of irrelevance is whether or not other PMs have lied, so please don't continue with that line of argument. SmartSE (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Whilst you make some fair points regarding opponents critisism, it is mostly a burst of coverage from the last 3-5 months, and mostly of which from the last month. It seems like WP:RECENTISM. We need to more time assess if this is critism will be truly enduring, or will blow over. Will it pass the WP:10Y test? At the moment, I think no. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 23:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: The existing content is from sources that are 10 years old. Further the Kuenssberg article is from May 2021, then there are also All the times Boris Johnson flat-out lied in the i from July 2018, Boris Johnson: The most infamous lies and untruths by the Conservative leadership candidate in The Independent from May 2019. SmartSE (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the quantity of RS that have described lying as a key feature of Johnson's premiership is considerable and far larger than that of any other British PM. This includes RS from across the political spectrum. Criticism of his dishonesty was the on the front of almost every British newspaper last week, and not for the first time – that's likely an indication that this is a remarkable/noteworthy aspect of Johnson's reputation. Smartse is correct that documenting the clear weight of RS trumps most BLP/VER arguments per WP:BLPPUBLIC. RS repeatedly said lying was a key feature of Trump's presidency, too, which is why our article on him mentions lying. I think it's worth considering whether the sourcing is equally strong in this case. That said, I think the editors seeking to add it should collate and present a larger collection of sources first so the weight can be clearly shown. Opinion articles and statements by individuals are a lot less valuable than news reporting/editorials; there's a mix of both in Smartse's comment above. I think there should also be a paragraph/few sentences directly discussing in the article body first, so that it's clear there's enough relative prominence for the lead. Jr8825 • Talk 20:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Quite agree, anything should first be added to the article main body. Once that's agreed, a suitable summary for the lead can be considered. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree such a characterisation would need to be in the body of article before lead. If someone wanted to add this and was looking for sources, I put a couple of pretty nuanced and balanced profiles in the Atlantic in "sources ideas" at the top of the talk page which might be good to consider as sources. There's also this article in the BBC.Arcahaeoindris (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, Laura, probably Boris's second biggest fan? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments: The article – which is very lengthy at over 329,000 bytes (it was approx 260,000 bytes a year ago in December 2020) and which may therefore be at risk of WP:RECENTISM – already contains a very large amount of criticism of Boris Johnson, with many accusations including of elitism, cronyism, Islamophobia, racism, bigotry etc. Ken Livingstone accuses him of being a "lazy tosser" – which in my view doesn't seem essential to include in the article as presumably Livingstone hasn't had direct experience of working with Johnson and the "lazy tosser" description is only Livingstone's personal opinion. The COVID-19 pandemic section of the article currently contains 12 paragraphs with most of the section critical of Johnson and nothing about the success of the vaccines to balance the criticism.

Given the overall weight of criticism in the article, I'm inclined to agree with concerns expressed by some editors about WP:NPOV – and as numerous politicans in different political parties have been accused of lying, I'm not convinced that it currently merits being included in the lead section. If Johnson is later proven by an independent report to have lied to the House of Commons, then that would, of course, be significant enough for the lead section. But as things stand, my view is that accusations of him lying is not essential for the lead.

With regard to article length and the risk of recentism, the 329,000+ bytes for this article on Johnson compares with under 139,000 bytes for former PM Gordon Brown, under 150,000 bytes for former PM John Major, under 207,000 bytes for Tony Blair and under 87,000 bytes for former PM James Callaghan. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah right. So, lying to the House of Commons = "significant enough"; lying to the British people = not significant enough. Or maybe we don't get the second one without the luxury of the first one? And yes, the "success of the vaccines" is notable. But that seems to have happened mainly because the advice of the scientists and the public health officials (and the joint effort of thousands of others), and even somewhat in spite of Johnson. Or does he deserve all the glory because he's our leader? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Johnson's relationship with the truth has a level of notability that exceeds that of most politicians - for instance, see this full length BBC article. I don't know if it should be included in the fourth paragraph of the lede, but it should be considered. BilledMammal (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC) I see now this is the same article cited at the top, but I do feel it demonstrates the notability of the topic well BilledMammal (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @BilledMammal:. Much like the creation of veracity of statements by Donald Trump, Johnson's relationship with the truth has attracted more scrutiny and weight of sourcing than most politicians, and therefore warrants some consideration in the article. These sources don't even necessarily criticise him for this: the BBC describes it as a "strategy to bamboozle", and the Atlantic link his communications skills to Johnson's popularity. On the length of the article, some parts could certainly be summarised or merged into Premiership of Boris Johnson. On the COVID vaccination programme, if there is a weight of sources linking its success or praise to Johnson himself for this feel free to include it. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Is BoJo the first UK prime minister to lie? GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Only the first one deserves any mention? I guess we need to start with Sir Bob. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

John Crace in, The Guardian:

No one knows this better than Boris Johnson. If he has a talent, it’s a talent for lying. And while it may have cost him countless relationships and friendships, it has taken him all the way to Downing Street. Put simply, he has become prime minister by lying better than all the other contenders for the job. But now he has run out of road and the lies have caught up with him. He’s the cartoon villain hopelessly spinning his legs before plunging into the abyss. Brexit has failed to deliver any of its promised rewards and inflation, at more than 5%, is far higher than wage growth. No matter how Boris tries to spin it, people are feeling more broke by the week. Broken Boris Johnson can no longer lie his way out of trouble

Johnson's lies are notable. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Proxima Centauri: This is a political sketch, which is not straightforward news reporting but more like satire. There are plenty of other better sources that I've listed above. SmartSE (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm. As if John Crace is a notable journalist read by thousands of people every day? If it's pure opinion it could be explicitly attributed to Crace as such. Maybe someone keeps "objective data" on number of lies told annually by UK politicians? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: So is Michael Deacon but do you think that this should be cited to support saying things would have been worse with Corbyn as PM? Not sure about objectivity but see Peter Oborne and https://boris-johnson-lies.com/ SmartSE (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's at all useful. It's not just the writer, not just the piece. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Even the Telegraph has dozens of reports of Johnson being called a liar (in the House of Commons, by Channel 4, by the BBC ...), far more than there are for Cameron or May. I can't believe anyone would seriously argue that he is no different from any other PM in this respect. It's a key feature of how he is perceived. --Andreas JN 466 13:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Being called one, maybe, but subjective opinion is just that. Being, perhaps, more loved, more loathed, more praised, more criticised, more of a winner, more charismatic, more of a buffoon, more eccentric, more jovial, less egotistical, more successful, less arrogant, more empathetic, more successful, more of an orator, cleverer with the English language, less self-conscious, more open, etc., etc., than any other prime minister or other politician for a long time, makes him more likely to attract more hate speech against him? But wouldn't make the attacks any more honest or worthy, would it? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Excepting his old employer The Telegraph, which of course sacked him for making up a fake quote, my strong impression is that Johnson has received a reception among RS news media and academic sources not dissimilar to that of Trump, i.e. he has been widely panned. These are sources we value more as an encyclopedia than popular views of him. Widespread, well-evidenced accusations that he has a propensity to lie by media outlets with strong reputations, listed as strong sources at WP:RSP, warrant coverage. Inferring they are "hate speech", or a "dishonest"/"unworthy" "attack" on Johnson, suggests you have strong personal opinions on this which could be affecting your editorial judgement; as an editor all that matters are the reputations of the sources and our policies. If you have a particular issue with a specific source, the source noticeboard is the place for a fuller discussion. Otherwise, it's seems pretty unambiguous that there's a significant number of sources consistently saying something about a public figure (that he lies to a significant degree), so it's appropriate for us to mention it. The only questions are 1) whether the weight is strong enough, and the substance non-judgemental enough, to say in wikivoice (i.e. without attributing it to "critics"), which I don't believe is the case here – see for example the FT's careful wording below – and 2) whether there's adequate prominence for a mention in the lead. My initial inclination is there likely is, but as I mentioned above, someone needs to first gather the sources together to demonstrate the weight clearly. I searched very briefly and can find news articles (non-columnist pieces) from quality newspapers pointing out Johnson's dishonesty that date prior to recent events, e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7]. And to demonstrate it isn't just left-leaning sources (not that The Economist or FT are left-leaning), there's even coverage in The Telegraph: [8] [9]. Jr8825 • Talk 16:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The articles linked could also be seen as good-faith misunderstandings of, or feigned indignation at, Johnson's work, and particularly of his sense of humour and satire. And some of the things in those articles are unfounded allegations, and others are just plain misrepresentations - how can they be used as support for you argument? If you believe that they do, doesn't that suggest that you have strong personal opinions on this which could be affecting your editorial judgement? How we choose to interpret Johnson's work will obviously reflect our personal opinions and biases. What we need to remember though is that the reviews are not statements of incontrovertible fact, they reflect the personal opinions and biases of their authors, and they need to be treated as such. That a majority may have a particular bias does not mean that their opinions suddenly become facts. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I see. Where do you propose we go to get a wholly "objective" canonical decision on Johnson's lying? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Look, we say in the lead he is praised as humorous and entertaining, and rightly so. That is subjective opinion, too. (I loved him actually when he was on Have I Got News For You. "Give that man a coconut!" He was hilarious and the wittiest man on set that day.) I think it is legitimate to include both perceptions: the one of him as loveable and entertaining, and the one of his being someone who cannot be trusted to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". Cheers, --Andreas JN 466 18:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd be prepared to watch him make a fool of himself for 30 minutes on Have I Got News for You. When it comes to watching him trying to run the country, that's a slightly different matter. But I agree about both perceptions. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Martin, you seem to have strong personal opinions, with reference to what Jr8825 said to me above, do you think they "could be affecting your editorial judgement"? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

DeFact, care to answer my question? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

When did you stop beating your wife? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah good, then you'll admit there is no wholly "objective" canonical decision on Johnson's lying. We're stuck with the "personal opinions and biases" of notable journalists and commentators? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't you think it's telling that we aren't looking at the alternative interpretations of the 'evidence', that give a different verdict? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

"With all due respect", I'd like to see your sources that argue coherently, with that 'evidence', that "he's not a liar". Or just even one, perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, the 'evidence' contains unsubstantiated allegations and misrepresentations which can be dismissed as not proven. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Judge Facto. If we were in a court of law, sure (well, in Scotland anyway). But when the guy appointed to investigate the parties has also had to "step aside", I'm not sure the majority of the British electorate thinks it's "case dismissed". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

But yes, you're right. I should really recuse myself from any remaining discussion here. I have "every respect" for Mr Johnson. I'm just sorry (for the entire country) that "Britain's answer to Donald Trump" is such a self-centred, lying, cretinous tosser. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, many of the 'accusations' are difficult to take at face value because they are founded on misrepresentations/misunderstandings of satire and humorous allegories, metaphors and rhetoric. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't call £112,549 of Lord Brownlow's money, and then a £17,800 fine for using it just "satire and humorous allegories". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC) .... but I guess those manifesto promised 40 new hospitals might be seen as "misunderstandings of metaphors and rhetoric".

Is that what he is reported to have said? I thought the alleged 'lie' was that he said he'd paid for the refurbishment himself (the Electoral Commission inquiry seems to have confirmed he was correct about that). It was the Tory Party that got the fine, for some technicality related to their book-keeping. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

As for the afterthought, do you know what a manifesto is? Had you noticed that since that manifesto was written, the world had been consumed in a pandemic? Do you suppose that Johnson had a hotline to the Wuhan bat caves, and was fully aware that belts would have to be tightened in the face of the £0.5 trillion, or whatever, bill so far, for sustaining the country through it, and that his aspirations were unlikely to be fully achievable in the face of it? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

He told the House he had paid for the refurbishment personally, but he forgot to mention it was Lord Brownlow's money? The fine was because the Conservative Party had failed to follow the law. But then: "Johnson had told Geidt that he did not know who had paid for the refurbishments until the story was reported in the media in February 2021, whereas the Electoral Commission found that he had messaged Lord Brownlow asking for extra funds in November 2020." I thought "new hospitals" meant, you know, hospitals that were "new". But they've never been built anyway, so perhaps it doesn't matter? I've not checked out the alleged "hotline to the Wuhan bat caves"; but I'm guessing it avoided 5G. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC) p.s. And of course, he's been very busy with "work meetings". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, according to the Electoral Commission report, on 9 March 2021 a Cabinet Office internal email said that the Prime Minister had confirmed he had paid "all bills with the supplier personally". It also said that anything that Lord Brownlow, his company, or the Cabinet Office had paid had been repaid in full. That seems to confirm that indeed the PM had paid for the refurbishment personally.

Read the report, and you'll see that the original method chosen to pay for the work was a trust using anonymous donations and that Brownlow was to be its Chair. So it is quite plausible that although the PM knew it was Brownlow who he had to ask to authorise the release of further funds from the trust, that he did not know (because it was an anonymous trust) that Brownlow was actually providing the funds to the trust too. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Then you'd better let Lord Geidt know, as he thought he'd been misled (and said so)? And you might want to adjust the wording of the Downing Street refurbishment controversy article, to get over your point about plausibility. Meanwhile, here's yet another source which thought it was "lying". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC) p.s. had you ever considered a career as a spin doctor? I trust your eyesight is good enough.

It's not the source that thinks he's lying, it's just another source reporting the same predictable accusation made by the opposition.

And where do we see Lord Geidt saying he's been misled? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

For example here? Ah, but we don't have an audio recording of him saying the exact words, yes? Perhaps he was going to resign just to take a holiday to the Wuhan bat caves? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not him saying he was misled, that's just another sensationalised take of the same opposition allegation. The WhatsApp message was discussed in the original Electoral Commission report where it says "29 November 2020: the Prime Minister messaged Lord Brownlow via WhatsApp asking him to authorise further, at that stage unspecified, refurbishment works on the residence. Lord Brownlow agreed to do so, and also explained that the proposed trust had not yet been set up but that he knew where the funding was coming from".

And which bit of the Downing Street refurbishment controversy article do you think needs adjusting? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see, so he was perfectly happy and wasn't going to resign after all? I thought you might want to adjust the Downing Street refurbishment controversy article as it doesn't say that Johnson's position was "quite plausible". Any bit you like, I guess. As long as you have good sources that say that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC) If he did resign, I guess Chris could always spend more time down at the Bullingdon Club.

That looks like more unfounded speculation and mischief-making by the Guardian - "sources say". -- DeFacto (talk). 22:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Whitehall sources often are un-named, aren't they. But they're usually the only sources we have. Poor Chris, now seen by Nick Cohen as a "a pathetic figure. Poor Boris. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah right, today Boris says "sorry" to Lord Geidt (again). Apparently the forgotten texts to Lord Brownlow all got lost when he "changed his mobile phone number"? An entirely plausible explanation, I'm sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, you seem to be up to date with the latest news on this, do you know whether it is true that Labour have asked the watchdog to investigate whether the PM, in cahoots with his wife, lied to their son about the existence of Father Christmas? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

If they include all of his offspring, the investigation will be quite lengthy. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Just dropping another good source about Dorothy Byrne calling him a "known liar" SmartSE (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
@Smartse, in what sense do you use the word "good"? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
@DeFacto: Reliable, not recent, by a person with no political affiliation. The lecture was also covered by The BBC and Sky News at the time. SmartSE (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Even if it is published in that Trotskyist loony left rag? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Incompetence

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

There has been a lengthy discussion about the inclusion of "lying, elitism, cronyism, and bigotry" in the lead but, from what I have seen and heard, there are far greater concerns about Johnson's incompetence than about any of the last three. The article mentions incompetence only once (when he was at Oxford) and there are two pieces about him being unfit for office (Cummings and Max Hastings). We could do with some more RS on this so that his incompetence can justifiably be included in the lead.

Of course, it doesn't help that the Daily Star is now saying that Johnson COULD organise a piss-up in a brewery. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't accusations of incompetence effectively extend from the accusations listed? i.e. his opponents argue he's incompetent because of his dishonesty, elitist/arrogant attitude, cronyism etc. I'm not sure we want to include highly subjective statements, such as assessments of competence, in a BLP lead, even if they were attributed. Jr8825 • Talk 05:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Not as things stand, no. It's the same as his lying, discussed above. We decided that much more was needed in the article text before we could justifiably add it to the lead, and that was done. I think we would need much more about his incompetence too, to satisfy BLP. I can see that dishonesty, arrogance, etc. are root causes of incompetence but I think there is much more to it than that. For example, his inability to concentrate on detail which manifests itself in these stupid slogans and tabloid-speak that we keep hearing. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Searching for more RSs so that "incompetence can justifiably be included in the lead" seems a bit the wrong way round. Yes, he is pretty incompetent, in my view. But then he partly seems to play on this persona of slight bumbling buffoonery? Then there's also the question of possible brain fog, which no one seems to have considered. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC) p.s. what happened to Boris's "big push" for everyone to get a COVID booster before the end of the year? That was 17 days ago and we're still only at 63.1%?

@No Great Shaker, is that how you think Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written? We list our own preconceptions (and I note from your user page that you are a self-professed Labour supporter and socialist) of the topic and then search for reliable sources that support those opinions. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Sigh! This is getting too much like hard work. Perhaps I should organise a BYOB gathering in my garden? Bit parky, though. If an editor thinks a particular topic should be included in the article, they must have RS. If there is insufficient RS, it can be a good idea to discuss the topic first rather than be bold. That is what happened with the lying topic and so it makes sense to do the same with Johnson's incompetence. The first two responses confirm my actual doubts about this topic because it's true that incompetence is more effect than cause, so we would end up with a list of cock-ups which are best described chronologically as narrative items. It is better to focus on the causes, such as dishonesty, bigotry and absence of integrity. An inevitable effect of these causes is incompetence. Not much else to be said, really, so I won't pursue this for the present, depending on how the article develops. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You could instigate a thorough investigation of the facts and then sack yourself? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Google on Boris Johnson incompetence Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realise he knew how to use Google. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Typo needs fixing

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't have enough edits yet to edit a page like this, so someone please fix:

"The Conservative Party sre 10 points behind"

Done Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Allegations of elitism and class prejudice

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I added the sub-section "Allegations of elitism and class prejudice" but it was removed for some reason. I added it as a sub-section of "Reception". In the sub-section, I linked two web pages which are credible sources which verify that Boris Johnson made derogatory comments about 20% of the UK population (over 10 million people) and "blue collar men". It is a logical addition to the previous sub-section (allegations of racism and Islamophobia) as it relates to derogatory comments about groups. In such an extensive article as this, such comments shouldn't be removed. There's no reason why they should be removed. They are factual, not disputed and significant enought to be major talking points during the election. I was thanked by another user when this section was added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MythDetector (talk • contribs) 12:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@MythDetector: I cited WP:WEIGHT when I removed it - basically we should be summarising that has been written about Johnson in proportion to how many sources exist. With only those two sources [10] [11], it is not apparent that the allegations have been reported sufficiently to merit inclusion, especially as a separate section, unlike accusations of racism. In some other biographies, those would probably be good to include, but for someone like Johnson, who has so much written about them, the bar is set higher. If you read the rest of this talk page, you should get an idea of how we work to decide what to include or not. I will try to do some more research to try and find more sources. SmartSE (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Smartse: Those comments were reported sufficiently. There are articles about those comments in the Independent [[12]], Mirror [[13]], Huffington Post [[14]], Guardian [[15]], Daily Star [[16]], Daily Mail [[17]], inews [[18]], by MPs [[19]]. MythDetector (talk)

@MythDetector: Thanks for those. Of them though, only the independent, guardian, inews and possibly huffpost are considered reliable sources - see WP:RSP for list of some specific sources either permitted or discouraged. Tabloids are a definite no no. Only inews seems to support that these are allegations of classism however and none of them say elitism. It might be appropriate however to include the quotes in the Boris_Johnson#The_Spectator_and_MP_for_Henley:_1999–2008 section given that they have attracted coverage over a number of years. It would also be good to check Purnell's biography of him as this covers the period and if it these are mentioned, that would be a strong indication of WEIGHT. Anyone else like to chime in? SmartSE (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Smartse: There is no disputing that those comments were made. One of the sources I cited was a factchecker. If they are also mentioned by Daily Mail, Mirror and other papers with major circulation as well as by an MP, that goes towards showing that they are "discussed sufficently" even if you claim those are "not reliable". MythDetector (talk)

@MythDetector: Yes obviously not disputing that, but he's written many things and so we need to determine that they are sufficiently noteworthy before including them here. It's not me "claiming" that those sources are not reliable - this represents the community consensus here about how to write biographies. You may not think it, but I am trying to help you find a way to get this included. SmartSE (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment: As mentioned previously on the talk page, the article on Johnson, as it currently stands, is very lengthy at over 355,000 bytes. In my view the article should be trimmed in places. Johnson has written many hundreds of articles and some of them were satirical in tone. Winston Churchill was also a journalist. There is a separate Wikipedia article for Winston Churchill as writer. It may be best to split articles for a more manageable length. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

In popular culture section

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Seeking thoughts if there ought to be an In Popular Culture section, with specific regard to the popular UK music single Boris Johnson Is a Fucking Cunt? Of course I recognize that it's simultaneously vulgar language and a bit of an attack on him, but it is notable and I think policy directs us to not censor vulgar language if it is a quote. Thoughts? CT55555 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of popular culture sections. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Note that this was included before but removed after Talk:Boris_Johnson/Archive_6#Song, not that that had huge participation. Looking through the references in Boris Johnson Is a Fucking Cunt, I'm not seeing much coverage in high quality sources with this in The Independent probably being the best available. Is there more coverage out there? facing a similar lack of media coverage in the lead (and seemingly unsourced) is not very encouraging. More broadly though, I would support turning the list of Boris_Johnson#Depictions into a popular culture section and writing it in prose. SmartSE (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I see Vice covered it, so I added that to the song article. Other source I easily found were RT and the Daily Mail, but depreciated sources, I think. CT55555 (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I think we should leave this for a day to let others have their say. I'm a bit confused here, I must admit, because I've never heard of Boris Johnson FC and someone has told me it's the same as Leeds United FC, but tbh I think he just doesn't like Leeds. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment: This article on Boris Johnson is already very long at over 355,000 bytes, compared with, for example, under 139,000 bytes for the former PM Gordon Brown, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer for 10 years before becoming PM, and under 87,000 bytes for the former PM James Callaghan, who is the only person in UK history to have held all four Great Offices of State. In my view the article on Johnson should be trimmed in places for a more manageable length and an "In Popular Culture" section is not very important for an already very lengthy encyclopedic biography.

If it was included, I think the section may start to have a tabloid tone, even if there are reliable sources for the content. Would other encyclopædias such as Encyclopædia Britannica include a reference to the song "Boris Johnson Is a Fucking Cunt" in the biography for Johnson himself? Highly unlikely in my view. I don't think it's important enough for an encyclopedic biography and I wouldn't support the inclusion of it as per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I think Britanica has a different inclusion criteria than Wikipedia due to the limitations on paper printing, comfort with including swear words, risks that a British company would get from adding it, so I think it's not a good benchmark. We can chose the tone of how we write it, shouldn't we simply focus on if it is notable? I think Johnson and Brown are both notable since well before they were prime ministers, and yet I think Johnsons's time in charge has been more notable (I'm not suggesting better). I think both these analogies (Brown/Johnson, Wikipedia/British print encyclopedia) are unhelpful reference points. CT55555 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Britannica is the best comparison (as CT55555 says, we have a different project scope, and WP:NOTCENSORED means we're less concerned with respectability than a traditional paper encyclopedia). However, where to draw the line for inclusion on the basis of whether something is inherently un-encyclopedic (WP:5P1) is subjective; some editors would argue this should never (or only extremely rarely) be a justification for exclusion (I recently saw Valjean make an eloquent argument on this issue over at BD2412's talk page, although I don't fully agree with him, particularly in the case he's discussing). Here, I think "Boris Johnson Is a Fucking Cunt" would be eligible for inclusion if there were sources indicating the song has become a significant part of popular conceptions of Johnson – and such sources haven't been brought up as of yet, as SmartSE points out. A relevant comparison is Margaret Thatcher, which similarly doesn't mention Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead#Death of Margaret Thatcher, which was comparatively more successful and influential than "Boris Johnson Is a Fucking Cunt", (reaching 2 in the charts (rather than 5) and no. 1 in Scotland). Jr8825 • Talk 12:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

How about in the Boris Johnson#Depictions section with just one sentence? The song is notable enough for its own article, so is notable enough for short mention here (unless there were a spinoff sub-article more suited for this type of information).

Other thoughts.... Vulgarity, attack (in the sense of merely "negative" (see WP:Public figure)), and Britannica are nearly always illegitimate arguments for keeping content out of any article at Wikipedia. We are an uncensored and all-inclusive encyclopedia, with nearly unlimited scope, the only limitation being total lack of mention in RS, never the type of subject matter. If it's human knowledge and mentioned in RS, it belongs somewhere at Wikipedia. I touch on this in a new essay (in its infancy) here: User:Valjean/Essay/WikiPurpose#Inclusion is our main priority. As Baseball Bugs put it when referring to WP:WHAAOE: "If I go looking for info, and Wikipedia doesn't have it, then Wikipedia has failed."[20] It is notable enough for its own article and, with more than 2-3 mentions in RS, is notable enough for mention here. WP:Other stuff comes into play with the mention of Thatcher and Ding-Dong!.... It should be mentioned in her article or a "death" sub-article if that existed. -- Valjean (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Noting that I agree with Kind Tennis Fan that I don't believe this mention is WP:DUE. BilledMammal (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Keir Starmer false claim

Latest comment: 2 years ago37 comments9 people in discussion

It's inappropriate to avoid calling this a "false claim", RS clearly state it is such (e.g. all BBC News coverage). WP:FALSEBALANCE applies to WP:FRINGE far-right conspiracy theories, even when the PM repeats them. Jr8825 • Talk 12:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The claim is widely considered false. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

That's because it is false, oddly enough. Black Kite (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

What is the claim that we are asserting is false? Does Johnson confirm or deny that he made that claim? Do any RSes cover alternative interpretations of what Johnson said? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the article is clear enough, and here's the source used (there are dozens more, as a simple Google News search will uncover, but it seems pointless to invoke cite overkill). I don't think there's much point in Johnson "confirming or denying" that he said it, considering it was in the House of Commons on live TV! Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

And the third point - do any RSes cover alternative interpretations of what Johnson said? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Not from what I've seen across RS news media. The BBC, Guardian, i and Independent are all unambiguous in their description of it as a false accusation/slur/claim. The multiple BBC articles in particular are adequate evidence, given its authority and strict regulation when it comes to British politics. Even the The Telegraph makes the same essential point about it being a grossly inaccurate conspiracy theory, albeit in a convoluted, reluctant manner. Times is paywalled so I can't check. Jr8825 • Talk 14:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The Times on 1 February here said "Boris Johnson has said he “stands by” false comments he made about Sir Keir Starmer’s involvement in the prosecution of Jimmy Savile in the House of Commons yesterday. ... The prime minister used parliamentary privilege to accuse the Labour leader of failing to prosecute Savile when he was director of public prosecutions (DPP), even though the conspiracy theory, which has spread online in recent years, has been found to be baseless." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

A quick search brings up several RSes reporting that Johnson had clarified what he meant and that Downing Street was saying that his original remark could have been misconstrued or misinterpreted, and that he had nothing to apologise for, and indeed did not intend apologising (The Guardian, Sky News, Independent, ITV News, The Telegraph, BBC News, The Herald).

Surely we need to now consider using more neutral wording in the article to reflect the fact that "falsely claimed" is only one of the available views, and possibly a misinterpretation of what was said. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Just chiming in to endorse DeFacto's view, here. — Czello 15:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

NPOV means we provide information which reflects the balance of sources, it's not about our own subjective determinations of what neutral wording is. The sources in this case clearly describe this as a falsity; neutrality/NPOV is irrelevant here. Further, what "Downing Street says" is not equal to what the reliable sources say themselves. When Trump says bleach fixes Covid, and all the sources say otherwise, we follow what the sources say regarding Trump's comment. The same logic applies here: if sources are clear it's false, there's no need to treat official statements/denials as worthy of equal prominence to the overwhelming weight of established sources, and in fact it'd be wrong to do so (per false balance). Jr8825 • Talk 15:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

On Thursday 3 February, while learning to drive a tram in a shed in Blackpool, he himself "explained" here that he was "not talking about the Leader of the Opposition's personal record"... Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The BBC calls it a false claim, they wrote, "Meanwhile, No 10 has said the prime minister has no intention of apologising after falsely claiming that Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer had failed to prosecute serial sex offender Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions." The BBC doesn't mention other interpretations. The BBC is reliable. The crowd that went for Starmer didn't understand that Johnson wasn't attacking Starmer personally. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure the crowd that went for Starmer is capable of "understanding" anything. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Reliable sources are consistently calling this a "false claim"; we need to do the same. BilledMammal (talk)

Meanwhile, for DeFacto, here's some alternative interpretation of what was said, from Kwasi Kwarteng, quoted yesterday in The Times: "Boris Johnson was “perfectly reasonable” in accusing Sir Keir Starmer of failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile, the business secretary insisted yesterday amid more Tory criticism of the attack.... But Kwarteng insisted that Johnson was right not to apologise, pointing out that “the person who apologised was Sir Keir Starmer” for the Crown Prosecution Service’s failure to prosecute Savile. Although Starmer was not personally involved, as director of public prosecutions he apologised on behalf of the organisation he led. Kwarteng told Times Radio: “Personal blame doesn’t attach to it, but he was head of the organisation. We’re talking about leadership, we’re talking about accountability, and that was a fair thing to bring up.” Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Kwasi Kwarteng isn't considered a reliable source. BilledMammal (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is peer reviewing or holding to editorial standards the comments of politicians and their spokespeople, whether that's Starmer, Kwarteng, Johnson, or a no. 10 public statement. Their comments are only appropriate when they are picked up by multiple sources and should always be attributed, not inserted into wikivoice. Objections to "falsely claimed" seem to revolve around the idea that we should insert Johnson's stated defence into wikivoice, when the sources are in fact unambiguous that his comment was false. Whether Johnson's defence should be included at all depends on how well-covered it is within RS, taking into account BLP considerations. It certainly shouldn't be used to adjust our recounting of facts as RS report them. Jr8825 • Talk 15:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

For those who, like me, are still confused by this, what exactly is the "false claim"? Is it that that Starmer "spent most of his time prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile, as far as I can make out"? And if so, is it both parts, or just one or the other of the "prosecuting journalists" bit or the "failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile" bit? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Or is it that little self-deprecating get-out clause "as far as I can make out" that Johnson carefully tacks on at the end? As if to say "I'm not a very bright chap, so perhaps I've been terribly misinformed, don'tchya know." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto, I don't believe anyone has picked up on the journalist part of the sentence except to quote the statement in its entirety. Perhaps some journalists were prosecuted, I don't know, though there have been certain former journalists who were known for telling porkies, I'm told, one in particular who had a Russian-sounding name – whoever. The false part of the statement is the alleged failure to prosecute Savile. It has been conclusively proven that this is a false claim per the many sources which have investigated the matter. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker, thanks for that, as I hadn't seen anyone picking up on the journalist bit either, surprisingly. So we're left with: he "spent most of his time ... failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile, as far as I can make out". So if that's false as they all seem to say, doesn't that mean they all believe the opposite, that he actually succeeded in prosecuting Savile? No, I didn't think so either, so confused I remain. What's false then? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

We need better wording to clarify that "failing to prosecute Savile" means Johnson is completely wrong in attempting to blame Starmer for the non-prosecution of Savile. We should ignore the bit about the journalists, I think. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker, you've lost me there with that translation, sorry. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Failure to prosecute means non-prosecution. Yes, the world knows Savile should have died in jail but the point is that any blame for his non-prosecution cannot be attributed to Starmer. That has been proved, as all reputable sources agree. Johnson, as usual, behaved like a public school lout who loses all sense and resorts to flinging baseless slurs at everyone who has seen through his shallow, odious character. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, right. You mean, when did Johnson stop spending all his time beating Starmer's wife? Surely the falsity lies in the assumption that it was Starmer's personal responsibility to prosecute Jimmy Savile? i.e. that's what he should have spent "most of his time" doing? I guess it's equally false to assert that he spent most of his time prosecuting lawyers? As far as we can tell.... Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

As the boss, it would be usual to assume that the buck stopped with him, no? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it might depend on the actual reasons why Savile wasn't prosecuted. Unless one espouses the views of the far-right conspiracy theorists, such as Telegram, who might well expect Starmer to have invented witness statements or plucked evidence out of thin air to achieve a prosecution? A major problem with Johnson's slur is that it's wholly tainted by its association with such deluded crackpots. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Surely whatever the reason, and with no prosecution while he was at the helm, he, erm, failed to prosecute him? And who associated that observation with any deluded crackpots? None of this is clear in the sources or the article and that's why it's all so puzzling. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It was his duty, in some way, to prosecute Savile? With all that benefit of hindsight that came later, after Savile was dead, yes? All frightfully curious.... I'm sure we'll eventually find that Bills and Hills were behind Starmer's brazen cover-up (or possibly wilful idleness). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not judging the reasons, just stating the facts as we know them. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Good for you. The problem is that what Johnson said in the house has very little indeed to do with "facts". But the reactions of Munira Mirza, Lindsay Hoyle and quite a few other MPs, make me think Johnson made a mistake. And that he made a much bigger mistake by refusing to retract that statement and apologise. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

There's an interesting analysis of why BBC News chose to label this as 'false' in The Spectator here. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. But it's now behind a paywall. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Using The Spectator's "gossip columnist" to inform factual statements in wikivoice would be just as inappropriate as using The Guardian's sketch writer; both are biased and should only be used for statements about the opinions/views of one side if the views of each side are due for inclusion in this specific case (a judgement which depends on a balancing act between between weight of sourcing, BLP tone and the need for summary-style concision given article size/recentism). There may be a case for including The Specator's analysis as a source for a sentence describing the PM's defence, there isn't a case for using it to change our description of the facts regarding the PM's original statement when RS are unanimous about them. The BBC's fact check piece on this is definitive. The rebuke to Steerpike's argument is that it's based on a misunderstanding of how the CPS works and the precise remit of the DPP – something the BBC fact check explains. Jr8825 • Talk 18:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting it to be used to support the translation of gossip into fact, no. But it could be used to support the writer's opinion, and it can inform talkpage discussion, as here. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

"Steerpike is The Spectator's gossip columnist, serving up the latest tittle tattle from Westminster and beyond." So we can't even put a name to that analysis? I must just check what Hello! magazine has said on the subject... Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note that Reuters also describe this as a false claim: [21]. They even link to a previous fact-check they did. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Recentism and article length

Latest comment: 2 years ago12 comments9 people in discussion

Concerns about WP:RECENTISM have been mentioned on the talk page previously, but just to (politely) make the point again. Long quotes about recent news events are often not needed as per WP:NOTNEWS. I supported Ghmyrtle's recent removal of a long quote from a retiring bishop, Paul Bayes, about comments made by Johnson in relation to Keir Starmer. The long quote by the retiring bishop was not sufficiently noteworthy, in my view, for an already very lengthy biography.

A year ago in February 2021 the Johnson article was approx 271,000 bytes. A year later, in February 2022, the article is over 371,000 bytes. So in the space of 12 months over 100,000 bytes have been added. The entire length of the biography for former PM James Callaghan (the only person in UK history to have held all four Great Offices of State and a senior politician for much longer than Johnson) is under 87,000 bytes. Does the most recent year in Johnson's life deserve more words than the entire life of Callaghan? In my view, no. If another 100,000 bytes are added over the next 12 months to the Johnson article then it's clearly going to be too long and focused too much on recent events. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree (obviously). Some editors seem to want to include everything that anyone says about Johnson, regardless. A "retiring bishop"? Really?? No-one cares. No encyclopedic value. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree. I fear this article is going the way of the Donald Trump article where every bit of news gets reported here — especially if it's negative, as this always attracts excruciating detail and WP:UNDUE weight. We could do with revising everything from his time as Prime Minister and seeing how much stands up on issues of weight and which are guilty of WP:RECENTISM. — Czello 09:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I think its probably a bit unfair to compare a pre-wikipedia politican which not many younger people at least have strong opinions about with someone whose lived most of their notable life in the era of wikipedia. Though this article is getting a bit comically extended maybe we should have look at moving some parts over to Premiership of Boris Johnson article? I might put one of those "if you want to write about X you may want to look here" template's that Donald's Trump article has at the top of this talk page.--Llewee (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I just saw the Starmer stuff on my watchlist and strongly agree that long sub-section is a recentism issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with KTF's concerns and have made some edits recently to try and cut down some of the newer sections, although obviously more can be done. I don't think it's a particularly big problem if the article initially swells in size as major events occur as it's valuable to have noteworthy information and sources added – the issue is that we should then revisit and condense/summarise new information and (if necessary) move things elsewhere. A lot of sections are bloated, and not only the ones on his recent premiership.

In my view, the sections needing condensing are:

Mayor of London#First term: 2008–2012 (incl. subsections)
Mayor of London#Second term: 2012–2016
Return to Parliament#Foreign Secretary: 2016–2018
Second term (since December 2019)#COVID-19 pandemic (potentially, although it's largely about major policy actions)
Second term (since December 2019)#Departure of Dominic Cummings and Lee Cain
Second term (since December 2019)#2021 Downing Street refurbishment controversy
Second term (since December 2019)#Partygate controversy (overly long quotes/minor details can be removed now, but will be easier to shorten once the dust has settled)
Second term (since December 2019)#Starmer comments controversy (as above)
Reception
Electoral Performance for the House of Commons (a large section (in terms of space, rather than word count) of tables showing his electoral performance added recently, I'm not sure whether it's standard to include this amount of detail in the articles of national leaders, and perhaps it'd be better off as a separate page?)

Jr8825 • Talk 13:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I think a bit of caution is needed removing whole sections. For all we know the Starmer comments may end up being more widely discussed in the long-term than something like the furore over Paterson's suspension. It's still in the news today a fortnight after the comments, and there have been calls for a police investigation over the attack of Starmer which followed: [22], [23]. Agreed a major cut is probably necessary, but I believe there's a strong case for at least a brief mention. Jr8825 • Talk 13:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Richard Nevell (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The Owen Paterson controversy was actually a meaningful deviation in process and a scandal. The Starmer comments were throwaway remarks that won't be remembered this time next year. With anyone with Johnson's levels of public scrutiny, any piece of news will have a lot of news coverage. That doesn't mean anything, and a bit of editorial thought should be used in writing articles. For clarity, I support complete removal of the section, but don't really mind if a sentence or two is added to another section. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to the idea of reducing it to a couple of sentences, but I'm not sure it would fit back into the Partygate section (where it used to be) as it's somewhat of a stand-alone topic. My main point is that it's not easy to make an assessment about appropriateness until more time has passed, at which point we can look back and see how much coverage there has actually been over time, rather than trying to guess whether or not it'll continue to be seen as attention-worthy. As long as the tone isn't unduly negative and it's as brief as possible, I'd prefer to keep a summary in place for now. Jr8825 • Talk 16:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I have raised similar concerns over WP:RECENTISM at Keir Starmer, also that some fairly dubious sourcing has gone on leading to POV issues. W C M_email 16:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree that this article is far too long. A lot of information can be moved to Premiership of Boris Johnson and summarised here, but the same also applies to other sections as Jr885 has helpfully summarised. I think another question is why is the "premiership" section divided between first and second ministries? Other political articles are divided by topic (i.e. domestic affairs, foreign policy, environment, COVID-19 pandemic) rather than between first and second ministries. Additonally I agree Starmer comments has massively WP:UNDUE weight at present. There are also already full length articles on e.g. Partygate and Downing Street refurbishment controversy so ideally that only needs to be summarised here. The former could even be a subsection of the "COVID-19 pandemic" section. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Misuse of "by whom" tags

Latest comment: 2 years ago33 comments6 people in discussion

Moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, just a quick note regarding "by whom" tags. The use of a "by whom" tag is governed by WP:WEASEL, this policy specifically states that text should reflect the use of language in reliable sources, and should not be added to sourced statements. The exact wording of the RS was that "many scientists" believed that Johnson's policies had led to the large number of deaths, therefore removing this and adding a "by whom" tag was not correct under the terms of WP:WEASEL. If you had read the sources and provided a different text, there might have been room for debate, but drive-by tagging of this kind is deleterious to the quality of the article. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we are expected to provide a complete list of the "many scientists"? Or is the use of any source that uses such a vague term wholly forbidden? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue, thanks for the explanation, but I didn't add the tags, I merely restored them after you removed them without such a full explanation. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I've just re-added them, with a talk page discussion going they should be used. I am concerned that these are examples of weasel wording and opinion needs to be properly attributed not expressed as fact. It's not a case of sources using vague terms being forbidden but we shouldn't be repeating their use of sloppy practise - especially on a WP:BLP article. I would not characterise this as misuse but precisely why they should be used. W C M_email 16:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

For info, the three sources used are these.^[1]^[2]^[3] Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The first Reuters source says: "Johnson, who contracted the coronavirus himself, was blamed by many scientists for acting too slowly to stop the initial spread in the spring." That's a very well-written and balanced article. I'd hardly say it was "sloppy". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The Politico article quotes three "experts" by name, as well as Chris Whitty. And the second Reuters source says "Some scientists and opposition politicians say Johnson acted too slowly to stop the spread of the virus and then bungled both the government’s strategy and execution of its response." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I find this puzzling, the RS uses the term "Many scientists" therefore this is clearly legitimate for the article. If we wish we could add the names of some of those scientists as well, but the quote is clearly sourced. I have removed the tags and the qualification "by many scientists" as this was the last stable version. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Answering Martin - good for a news report, not so good for writing a quality encyclopedia. Noticeably, they're all a year old and a good example of why we don't encourage the use of newspapers as sources as by now there should be better quality academic sources available, which would be preferable. W C M_email 17:37, 16 February 2022

Answering Boynamedsue, it wasn't formatted as a quote, it was formulated as a fact in wikipedia's voice and that was/is a problem. W C M_email 17:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Reuters is a WP:RS, full stop? Except, because this is a scientific topic, we need to be more rigorous? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

For the opinions of "many scientists" the sources are fine. I don't think I have seen a single scientist who stated post-facto that the UK government's response was adequate, perhaps you have? Here are a few sources from journals which say the same thing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7278636/ "As of May 17th, the UK has reported 34,466 deaths, almost five times Germany's 7914, illustrating vastly different outcomes [1]. It is clear from the numbers that a low number of testing, as well as late commencement of lockdown has led to this blatant discrepancy. This is especially poignant given that so many deaths could have been avoided, had the UK taken a more proactive approach in containing the coronavirus outbreak."

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.17310/ntj.2020.3.10 " Its delay in introducing a lockdown, widespread testing of those who might be infected, and restrictions on the entry of visitors from countries where the virus was rife, as well as its decision to order the transfer of patients from hospitals to care homes without testing them, contributed to the high death toll from the virus."

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n284 "The UK’s response to covid-19 compares poorly with that of other countries. The reasons are to be found in an inability to learn from what was known about the virus and to act accordingly. Mistakes could have been avoided if the government had listened to leaders outside Westminster and Whitehall, drawn on a wider range of expertise, and been curious about experience in other countries."

Boynamedsue (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, how to proceed? We can either add the names of all the scientists who hold this view (6 or 7 should be enough) or leave it at as it is without the tag. I would say wikivoice is good for "many scientists", as RS use the exact term. "Many scientists" is here a statement of fact rather than opinion. If there are any scientists who argue that Johnson's handling of the beginning of the pandemic was anything other than inept, they could be added too, though it may fall foul of WP:FRINGE...Boynamedsue (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

No it's not a statement of fact, it's a statement of opinion, you can never never know either way what the outcome would have been. It seems your personal opinions are clouding your judgement here. As I've pointed out, the sources are a year old, there should be better and more informed sources out there now. We should be looking to find and use them and not stick to newspaper sources. W C M_email 07:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

"many scientists believe" is a statement of fact, and a sourced one at that. There are another 3 academic sources linked above which state the views of scientists on the pandemic, there is no rule that reliable sources a year old are not valid to source the opinions of individuals on a topic. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

just to clarify, the relevant text from the Reuters article is "Johnson, who contracted the coronavirus himself, was blamed by many scientists for acting too slowly to stop the initial spread in the spring.", as cited above

Boynamedsue (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

References

^ "50,000 COVID-19 deaths and rising. How the UK keeps failing". Reuters. 24 November 2020. Retrieved 1 January 2021.
^ "Scientists turn on Boris Johnson over UK's coronavirus response". Politico. 10 June 2020. Retrieved 1 January 2021.
^ Sandle, Andrew MacAskill, Paul (25 January 2021). "Anger and grief as United Kingdom's COVID-19 death toll nears 100,000". Reuters. Retrieved 25 January 2021.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Taking this point by point:

1. No, it is a statement of opinion in the source referenced. Opinion should be attributed and not presented as fact. I would suggest as extra reading WP:POVSOURCE and WP:BIASEDSOURCES.

2. All the sources you presented are News organizations and yes can be used as reliable sources. However, care has to be taken in their use as they mix fact and opinion.

3. Reliable sourcing per WP:RS Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics., my point is not that the source is a year old but that after a year better and more reliable sources should be available. We should be looking to those not relying on news organisations.

As I said, the tags were appropriate and we can do better than this. I note sadly that precisely the same problems I have raised were also raised during the GA review Talk:Boris Johnson/GA1. W C M_email 10:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Is the topic here COVID or Boris Johnson? A statement, lifted from WP:RS press, saying e.g. "many backbenchers expressed their disapproval" would not likely be challenged? We wouldn't be expected to name them all? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I find discussions move forward when people don't adopt an entrenched position, presume good faith and address the points made in the discussion. W C M_email 12:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, so do I. That's not a rhetorical question. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

When did you stop beating your wife? I would also object to the statement you made because its vague, ill-defined, the opinion of the author and unencyclopedic in nature. I don't expect you to name them all but I do expect you to attribute opinion where warranted. I didn't respond because I took the first comment as a demonstration of bad faith in its implications, was it intended to be a serious question or some sort of accusation? W C M_email 12:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It was a serious question. It still is. Anyone's free to answer, not just yourself. The statement I made - which one was that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This is somewhat baffling, the statement is already presented as the opinion of "many scientists" rather than as fact. How about "Many scientists including a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h and i" if it's felt a list of names is required. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I thought maybe it was just Wikipedia editors' opinions of the newspapers' opinions of the many scientists' opinions.^[FBDB] Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Can I firstly clarify exactly what wording is being discussed here? People in the above discussion are talking about the phrase "many scientists", which doesn't currently appear in the article. I presume the sentence being discussed is "This response is thought[by whom?] to have contributed to the UK's high death toll from COVID-19, which as of January 2021 was among the highest in the world in total and by population.[485][490][491]"? If so, the "by whom" tag is correct as the text doesn't explicitly say who is doing the thinking. (Perhaps the wording has changed since this discussion started?)

I think it's clear there's adequate sourcing for "many scientists have argued/think that [Johnson's response contributed to a high death toll]", but, after carefully re-reading WEASEL, I also think that DeFacto and WCM are correct in raising concerns about WEASEL. The most relevant part of the guideline is "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed"; it's not Wikipedia making an assessment that many scientists think something, and best practice when discussing assertions about consensus/widely-held views is to always make it explicit to the reader whose assessment it is. One option would be to attribute the sentence itself, but as the sentence is a summary of multiple sources this would be hard to do. The best solution is to add a second following sentence to demonstrate the basis of the claim and its attribution (per WEASEL: "[these phrases] may also be used ... in a topic sentence of a paragraph [when] the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution"). This second sentence should summarise what Martinevans123 says further up in this discussion, along the lines of: "Reuters has reported that scientists are critical of Johnson both for acting too slowly to stop the spread of COVID and for mishandling the government's response measures. A November 2020 Reuters investigation found that "lessons from the first wave were not learned", citing scientists critical of the UK's test and trace system, and Politico quoted [Whitty, 3 experts] as saying that an earlier initial lockdown would have significantly lowered the death toll". Jr8825 • Talk 15:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Jr8825, you have addressed the issue rather well. I would also had the comment that the sources are all news sources and now over a year old. By now there should be academic or scientific sources for these claims and much better sources should be available. So I would argue for seeking better sources. I'm presuming from the continues mocking of certain editors that they have approached matters assuming bad faith. W C M_email 16:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: I think those sources are a cut above standard news articles: the Politico piece because it's only being used to indicate the specific views of several senior scientists (which are quoted within its article) and the Reuters news report because Reuters has an excellent reputation as a newswire for minimal editorial bias. The Reuters investigation is probably the weaker of the three as it's investigative, so by nature less detached from the topic, although again it does directly quote scientists. The transparency of a sentence clearly attributing the claims of each source allows our readers to make up their own minds whether they trust the sources. I agree the sources may become dated when a proper inquiry/investigation is carried out over Britain's COVID response, which will (hopefully) also illuminate how much personal responsibility Johnson should shoulder. However, I think it's ambitious/probably unrealistic to expect scholarly sources to have already appeared over the last year making clear assertions about the overall scientific view of Johnson's response. Admittedly, I haven't done a deep search looking for other sources, but looking at British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic#Reception there are also a number of critical BMJ editorials (e.g. [24]) that could potentially be used as a replacement for the Reuters investigation source, if you think the addition of a direct scholarly/scientific source (albeit a non-peer reviewed one) would be helpful. Jr8825 • Talk 17:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty comfortable with both suggestions though I have a preference for the BMJ as a source over Reuters, in either case (particularly with the appropriate attribution) I believe it would actually have more weight. I must admit I haven't done any serious searching for newer sources as I was rather discouraged by the attitudes I was encountering. W C M_email 17:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Would be a good improvement. No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, no problem with that language. There are actually quite a few scholarly sources, particularly from the BMJ, which characterise the UK government's response in similar terms to those expressed in the article, but eventually that is likely to become a debate about whether to use unqualified wikivoice or not. We are probably several years away from that still. My concern has always been the misuse of the "by whom" tag which should not be used with sourced material of this kind, given its page states: "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation. If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire "By whom?" in that circumstance" Boynamedsue (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: It looks as though the tag's usage guidance can in some circumstances contradict MOS:WEASEL, and given that the latter is a community-generated guideline, I'd say it should be given precedence. Jr8825 • Talk 19:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it contradicts MoS on WP:WEASEL, where RS states "it is thought that" we are pretty much ok to use the same phrasing. I think that is what we are looking at here. I'd agree that the by whom tag is widely used in this way though. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Although I do not have much to add to the discussion above, when this was discussed previously I listed a few sources to support the "reacted slowly" statement which other editors may find useful to refer to to support this particular statement. BMJ editorials are of course a stronger source and I have spent some time reviewing them to improve British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, although from what I recall they tend not to single out Johnson specifically. The book Failures of State might also be worth a look, which actually does single out Johnson out. Although WP:MEDRS should take precedence, it could be a useful source here. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Flash mob

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Re this deletion, I fail to see how it can be seen as "non-notable" or "irrelevant". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to talk page. Isn't this a protest, rather than a popular culture or media depiction of Johnson, as the others here are? I'm sure there have been many protests about Johnson, but it seemed out of place in a section about pop culture depictions. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it was a "protest" (of sorts), and yes it is in the "music and music media" sub-sect. It involved singing, or at least chanting. And dressing up. I'm not sure where else it might fit. Maybe you think, per WP:UNDUE that it belongs only at Partygate? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems like a better fit for Partygate than here, based on the low likelihood of long-term significance/relevance to Johnson. Jr8825 • Talk 19:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, let it stay out. Thanks for discussing. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree - belongs in Partygate if anywhere. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

NPOV tag on Starmer section

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

@Wee Curry Monster: could you please explain what you think the NPOV issue is with this section? I understand the argument regarding recentism, but not NPOV. My only concern is that I think the repetition of "false" is unnecessary (I've just removed it), but otherwise the text looks robust and well-cited to me, following the sources. What specific changes do you believe should be made to address your concerns? Jr8825 • Talk 16:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, let's hear the rationale. I also don't quite see the need. No explanation is given in the template. The original edit summary was "tagging per comments at Talk:Keir Starmer"? And I'm also not convinced by the recentism claim, but I guess that deserves a separate discussion thread. Are mob street attacks and death threats just everyday occurrences for a leader of the opposition? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Not specifically related to the NPOV tag, but I note that some of the content about Keir Starmer in relation to his time as Director of Public Prosecutions is also repeated in the "Reception" section of the article. Is the content important enough to be in two different sections? Not sure that it is. My own view is that the content may merit a few sentences in the biography, but not necessarily a whole section. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Certainly, happy to. Though I have explained my concerns previously at Keir Starmer.

Firstly. Johnson made the Saville remark in a heated exchange with Starmer, in which Starmer repeatedly made the charge that the buck stops with the man at the top. Starmer was referring to acts by civil servants of which Johnson was unaware and for whom Johnson had no direct responsibility. Johnson replied to the effect that if that were the case Starmer had failed to prosecute Saville, in effect a reductio ad absurdum. A No.10 spokesman later clarified Johnson's remarks along those lines and that he would not be apologising; Johnson himself has said that he knew that Starmer had no direct responsibility. Much has been made in the press that it is a "false claim" and I noted that editors had managed to repeatedly add that the "claim" was "false"; so thank you for editing that. One POV concern was that it was not putting the remarks in context and concentrating on remarks in the press that took the claim out of context. In fact it seemed to becoming a WP:COATRACK to repeat that claim as much as possible.

Secondly, the nature of the crowd that mobbed Starmer a few days later. These were not "sovereign citizens" as one BBC article speculated but were in fact the same group of anti-vaxxers that have attacked other politicians including Michael Gove. This group also referred to Gove as a paedophile protector so they history of repeating that as an insult; ie it has nothing to do with the earlier remarks and was linked solely by one individual shouting Saville. The implications was that the group were right wing sympathisers of Johnson, whereas the group included a number of left wing members of Momentum and are led by Piers Corbyn, brother of the former labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

I believe the section is over bloated and an example of recentism, it needs to be trimmed down considerably and edited for balance. W C M_email 07:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: I appreciate your analysis. However, the content that's currently there is supported by the sources present, and BBC Monitoring seems like a robust source to me. I think the best way to move forward (and to avoid OR) is if you could provide links to the sources/news articles which either contradict the current text or say something different, so that we can weigh up the relative weight of claims. (For example, could it be possible that the mob/groups attacking Starmer included both far-right and left-wing anti-vax members?) If you could gather some sources it'd be much appreciated. Also, is there any specific text (i.e. particular sentences, clauses) that you think is inflated/undue and should be removed? The current two paragraphs are pretty concise, and I'm not seeing bits that can be obviously cut without the loss of information, so it comes down to which details you think we should be excluding per recentism. Jr8825 • Talk 22:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Johansson and Johnson

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Who would really confuse Johansson and Johnson? Is there really any need for Boris Johansson to be mentioned at the top of the article? FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I was confused by that too. I've removed for now, until someone can give a good rationale for its inclusion -- QueenofBithynia (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Split the content

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Split 78.57.44.135 (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed needs to be done. Premiership of Boris Johnson, Political positions of Boris Johnson, and Public image of Boris Johnson should be used. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I have copied content from this article and Premiership of Boris Johnson to Political positions of Boris Johnson, and rewritten the Political positions and ideology section of this article in summary style. Andysmith248 (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Andysmith248: - I've noticed some of the paragraphs and sections now exist in both articles. We need to ensure there isn't a WP:DUPLICATE of any content after the split. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

"second-hand speculation and opposition party tittle-tattle"

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Are The Guardian and The Times not WP:RS? "The Sunday Times revealed that as well as giving a speech Johnson poured drinks for people, including himself. A photographer is said to have been present throughout and taken pictures of the prime minister. Downing Street did not dispute the description of the event but said it was untrue that Johnson had organised it." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The full reverted diff seems to be this which contains a lot of opposition comments - those are totally unnecessary. A comment about the pouring of drinks (etc) seems fine to add, though, but perhaps rewrite it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they are reliable. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I see this material has now been restored. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced statement about response to outbreak

Latest comment: 2 years ago16 comments9 people in discussion

Should we keep the unsourced statement about his response to the outbreak in the lede for the time being? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not unsourced, I presume you're aware of MOS:LEADCITE. The detailed sourcing can be found at Boris Johnson#COVID-19 pandemic, and the relevant body text was recently discussed above in this thread. If necessary, one of the sources from that section could be used for sentence in the lead. If I recall correctly, there have also been several discussions about the particular phrasing of that lead statement in the past, so other editors may be able to chime in on the issue of relevance/due weight. I'm not set in my view on that particular sentence in the lead, and it could probably do with additional qualification following on from the discussions in the above linked thread (e.g. "criticised by some scientists", rather than a vague, unattributed statement). However, I don't believe there's a credible argument that it's unsourced. Jr8825 • Talk 22:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCITE says "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.". --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Then I'd see no problem with adding a source. But there has been an awful lot of discussion about this already, and I assumed that what we have now had gained consensus. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a preference for any particular source (or even two)? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Not really. I thought Reuters was pretty good. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Being pretty good is a start. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the statement requires balance too - certainly many people, particularly those on the British right, would and have argued that Johnson’s response to the COVID pandemic has been too stringent. For example, the Covid Recovery Group of Conservative MPs. I think the sentence should either be removed with simply a sentence, as before, just stating that his government responded to the pandemic.

Or if an editor proposes a longer sentence that reflects more of his Covid policies/responses then I’d perhaps support that. Moreover, I’m unsure whether there has been talk discussion (presumably there has) on, for example, whether Johnson’s gatherings (ie Partygate) also warrant inclusion? JLo-Watson (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with JLo-Watson that the statement could be better balanced in the lead section. Although some scientists have indeed criticised Johnson for a slow response to the outbreak, not all scientists have and the government stated that they followed scientific advice from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies chaired by Sir Patrick Vallance. Also, not all aspects of Johnson's response to the outbreak has been criticised. The government's Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (furlough) was supported by opposition parties and has generally been welcomed for helping to keep unemployment relatively low during the pandemic. I don't seek to claim that Johnson has done a wonderful job – merely that the lead section could be better balanced.

In my view there's a case for including in the lead section the fact that Johnson was given emergency oxygen in intensive care with Covid. This also meant that Dominic Raab deputised for Johnson during his absence at an important stage of the outbreak in April 2020. Raab deputising for him is probably not important enough for the lead, but the fact that Johnson was in intensive care for several days perhaps is. With regard to Partygate, if the Metropolitan Police issue Johnson with a fine then I think it's significant enough to be included in the lead section. If he is not issued with a fine (and therefore no proof that he broke the law himself on gatherings) then I don't think Partygate is important enough to be included in the lead. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

There is evidence and sources that suggest this allegation is tenuous at best, and the direct implication that Johnson resisted lockdown measures in the first wave (after all, that’s how “outbreak” reads) is proven to be incorrect. Coronavirus - Lessons Learned to Date from the HSC and S&T committees concludes that:

"The policy [of flattening the curve] was pursued until 23 March because of the official scientific advice the Government received, not in spite of it."

With this in mind I am not comfortable with how it currently reads. Spa-Franks (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

For reference, the discussion that led to this sentence being added to the lead can be found here: Talk:Boris_Johnson/Archive_7#"Reacted_slowly"_to_COVID_in_lead. There are also a number of sources that could be used to support it. I'm not against the sentence being changed if others have other ideas on how it should summarise the article's body, for instance Johnson's hospitalisation. Johnson also split from scientific advice later in 2020, e.g. [25] and although the parliamentary report is an ok source, secondary and ideally medical sources are stronger. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

If the discussion is outdated then we need to update our wording. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion linked to is a debate about whether the UK acted slowly or not. I'm not wanting tor reopen that debate as such, because it is generally accepted the UK reacted slowly. However, at the moment the lead seems to directly blame Johnson, in a Trump-like manner. I would also consider the select committee report to be a secondary and retrospective source, as it is not from the Government and nor is it from Q1/Q2 2020. Spa-Franks (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Given that Johnson claims (falsely, given the number of ongoing Covid deaths) to have 'cured' Covid, which is as dishonest as it is astonishingly stupid, then it's only fair to apportion blame for the slowness of the lockdown and its frequent reversals and counter-reversals to him as well. 82.71.36.254 (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Johnson has since received a fixed penalty notice in relation to Partygate so that suggests that it should potentially be included in the lede, as per the rationale outlined above from fellow editors. I see it has already been added to the lede by some users; no doubt the inclusion and/or wording of it will be discussed and will come under scrutiny on the talk page in due course. JLo-Watson (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

We should wait to see long-term signifiance. If he weathers the storm, then it will be up to history to assign signifiance to Partygate in the context of Boris Johnson's life (and whether it's especially distinct from all the other controversies he's ended up in). "History" needn't mean sources in 20 years time, but it should at least not be decided while the event is happening. If it results in his resignation, then it's immediately obvious it's significant. Right now it's not clear how substantial it is in the context of Boris's overall life. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Criminal history

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

First British PM to have broken the law while in office 176.80.209.134 (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the lead section says "he became the first Prime Minister in British history to have been sanctioned for breaking the law while in office..." Not sure if you have seen that. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request to Boris Johnson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

typo: lnguage → language 82.132.185.14 (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Done 💜 melecie talk - 04:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Born Country

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The "born" section in the infobox doesn't contain links. Please add link to New York City and United States (I can't edit this page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phest1986 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

[1] Grierson, Jamie (10 December 2021). "Lies, damned lies: the full list of accusations against Boris Johnson". the Guardian. Retrieved 19 December 2021.

[BBCtruth-2] Kuenssberg, Laura (1 May 2021). "Boris Johnson: What is the PM's relationship with the truth?". BBC News. Retrieved 19 December 2021.

[atlantic202110-3] McTague, Tom (2021-10-04). "Is Boris Johnson a Liar?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2021-10-18.

[4] Stubley, Peter (25 May 2019). "Boris Johnson's most infamous lies and untruths". The Independent. Retrieved 19 December 2021.

[5] McTague, Tom (4 October 2021). "Is Boris Johnson a Liar?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 19 December 2021.

[6] Plummer, Kate (27 September 2021). "Video accuses Boris Johnson of talking 'b*****ks' over universal credit cuts". Indy100. Retrieved 19 December 2021.

[7] "Campaigner highlights what he calls Boris Johnson's 'lies' in viral video". The Guardian. 19 April 2021. Retrieved 19 December 2021.

[8] "The Assault on Truth by Peter Oborne review – Boris Johnson's lies". The Guardian. 3 February 2021. Retrieved 17 June 2021.

[9] Sparrow, Andrew (19 April 2021). "Parties call for inquiry into Boris Johnson's 'failure to be honest'". the Guardian. Retrieved 19 December 2021.

[10] Lynch, David (30 November 2021). "Boris Johnson 'has demonstrated himself to be liar', SNP's Ian Blackford claims". The Independent. Retrieved 19 December 2021.

[walker260721-11] Walker, Peter (26 July 2021). "Dawn Butler was right to call Boris Johnson a liar, says Keir Starmer". the Guardian. Retrieved 19 December 2021.

[12] Grierson, Jamie (10 December 2021). "Lies, damned lies: the full list of accusations against Boris Johnson". the Guardian. Retrieved 19 December 2021.

[BBCtruth-13] Kuenssberg, Laura (1 May 2021). "Boris Johnson: What is the PM's relationship with the truth?". BBC News. Retrieved 19 December 2021.

[atlantic202110-14] McTague, Tom (2021-10-04). "Is Boris Johnson a Liar?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2021-10-18.

[15] Stubley, Peter (25 May 2019). "Boris Johnson's most infamous lies and untruths". The Independent. Retrieved 19 December 2021.

[16] Sparrow, Andrew (19 April 2021). "Parties call for inquiry into Boris Johnson's 'failure to be honest'". the Guardian. Retrieved 19 December 2021.

[17] Lynch, David (30 November 2021). "Boris Johnson 'has demonstrated himself to be liar', SNP's Ian Blackford claims". The Independent. Retrieved 19 December 2021.

[walker260721-18] Walker, Peter (26 July 2021). "Dawn Butler was right to call Boris Johnson a liar, says Keir Starmer". the Guardian. Retrieved 19 December 2021.

[reuters-19] "50,000 COVID-19 deaths and rising. How the UK keeps failing". Reuters. 24 November 2020. Retrieved 1 January 2021.

[20] "Scientists turn on Boris Johnson over UK's coronavirus response". Politico. 10 June 2020. Retrieved 1 January 2021.

[21] Sandle, Andrew MacAskill, Paul (25 January 2021). "Anger and grief as United Kingdom's COVID-19 death toll nears 100,000". Reuters. Retrieved 25 January 2021.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

Talk:Boris Johnson/Archive 8

Contents

Lying in lead

Suggested content

Incompetence

Typo needs fixing

Allegations of elitism and class prejudice

In popular culture section

Keir Starmer false claim

Recentism and article length

Misuse of "by whom" tags

Flash mob

NPOV tag on Starmer section

Johansson and Johnson

Split the content

"second-hand speculation and opposition party tittle-tattle"

Unsourced statement about response to outbreak

Criminal history

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2022

Born Country