Talk:Boris Johnson

Sex scandals

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

I agree with you Martin.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) (contribs) 13:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm by no means against mentioning it somewhere but it was definitely out of place in Reception and our coverage here should concentrate on what Johnson himself has or has not done. Please drop the "carefully tidied away" attitude though - some of us are better at leaving our POV at the door. SmartSE (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

What he has or has not done? Like appointing Pincher twice? It was carefully tided away, without a trace. Very efficient. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree too that it does not belong here. It is not related to Johnson. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I see. So headlines and opinion pieces that use the name "Boris Johnson" (the guy who appointed Pincher, twice) are not about him at all. It's all just an unfortunate coincidence? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2022

Link to an explanation of the word 'matriculated'

Change:

Matriculating at the university in late 1983

To:

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2022

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

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

He has to stay as Prime Minister until a new Tory Party leader is elected. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

... or if the party agrees someone else as interim PM. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

And the chance of that happening is? All of them have resigned over the past few days! MadGuy7023 (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Not all of them - the likeliest option is that they would have Raab as interim PM. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Can't wait. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Resigned?

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

Note he hasn't resigned, he announced that he will resign. As of now he is still the prime minister. https://www.vox.com/2022/7/7/23198063/boris-johnson-prime-minister-resigns 69.113.236.26 (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Current phrasing is very wordy “ he announced his pending resignation on 7 July 2022, remaining at his positions until a new leader is elected”. He has announced he is resigning but will remain Leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister until a successor is appointed would be clearer. BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

He hasn't even done that. His speech made no mention of resigning. At this time he has stated no intention of resigning whatsoever. You have to be very careful with proven liars like the UK Prime Minister. It is not safe to believe what he says, nor what the newspapers report he has said. I still do not understand why both wikipedia and MSM are flagrantly misquoting him. Jiver2 (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

What I've heard seems like that he's resigned Leader of the Conservative Party, but still keep his Prime Minister seat until September, are there any opposite informations?

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

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

Largest number of resignations in a Premiership?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 'Ex-Prime Minister of the United Kingdom' RealTfA (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Mention of support for Ukraine in the lead?

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

References

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

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

Don't put 'Outgoing', in the infobox

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

'Caretaker' term

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

Yes, I agree it's pointless. If a caretaker like Dominic Raab had actually been appointed, then he could have been described as such, but not the incumbent.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

e/c Agree. Raab might have been (still might be) seen as a "caretaker", as Deputy. But this makes BoJo sound like the bumbling incompetent Norman Potter in the 1970s sitcom "Please Sir!".... well, actually, thinking about it... Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

If Raab was appointed prime minister? He would be prime minister, not caretaker prime minister. Best we avoid using such prefixes, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't they invent something for him? But I agree it's unlikely. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

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

According to the Institute for Government,[1] there are three scenarios in the UK where the government "acts in a caretaker capacity":

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

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

On this morning's Today (just before 08.20) it sounded like James Cleverly had not seen that website. Or at least, if he had seen it, was exactly extending it to the currently situation, saying (a bit like a mantra) "the functions of government endure". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

There’s already a thread about this above. I think we should avoid original research about the meaning of terms and whether they apply, and follow the reliable sources. We should avoid referring to reliable sources with which we disagree in groundless derogatory terms to try to discredit them. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

We need to remember that although sources may be considered reliable for facts, they are unlikely to be neutral, and this applies particularly to politics in news media, most of which are politically aligned or support or oppose particular politicians. See WP:BIASED. It is our duty per WP:POV to call out bias where we see it in cited sources, regardless of whether we agree with it, or not (and I'm neutral on this, but want to make sure we are following the facts and not to just mimicking the inaccurate terminology often used for effect in biased sources). -- DeFacto (talk). 11:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to make a handy list here of all the sloppy/sensationalist/biased political journalism sources you've discovered so that we can avoid them. Was assuming less than 100 items. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

We’ve got The Evening Standard, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, BBC, ITV and Sky News – so all three major TV news broadcasters – not to mention the same charity you sought to rely on in your original research, all using the term "caretaker"; if any of the sources are biased they evidently agree on this point. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but this is an encyclopaedia, and we should strive for accuracy and clarity, avoiding such (deliberate?) ambiguity and bias. We could paraphrase to avoid confusion/conflation with the use of the same word that is used as a technical term for the three cases listed above. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

So, The Evening Standard, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, BBC, ITV, and Sky News all have "sloppy/sensationalist/biased political journalism" for using this term, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity and bias in this term. That’s why news organisations with quite different ideological positions, and a charity which you used as a source for the definition of the term, all used it. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

There may not be to you, but there clearly was to the editor who added it and linked it to that technical term. What is the problem you see with rephrasing it or using a synonym for clarity and disambiguation? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it shouldn't be linked. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in that edit indicates that the editor clearly, or otherwise, used it to introduce ambiguity or bias. It looks like they did so because that’s the term multiple RS use. You’ve not indicated what you think the bias is; none is apparent. As I said, I think we should closely follow the sources. If there are multiple sources from a variety of ideological positions, including the major broadcasters, which use a different word to describe the situation, perhaps indicate what they are. Otherwise there is no reason to choose a synonym for the term that the RS agree on. @Martinevans123: I already removed the wikilink. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, perhaps that was the only problem. Or maybe that article simply needs updating, in the light of recent events. We know that WP is not WP:RS. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2022

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

The article already mentions this. He remains PM until a new leader is chosen. — Czello 18:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

He hasn't met the monarch & tendered his resignation as prime minister. So your edit request should be denied. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

But he reportedly resigned as leader of the Conservative Party. If he is acting leader he should be referred to as this. The page is written as if he didn't resign from leadership with immediate effect. 2001:4BC9:A46:BF35:CD7A:6AC0:69B5:EAF1 (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

It isn't with immediate effect. It only happens when a new leader is chosen. — Czello 07:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I see no sourcing to support the interpretation that he remains leader of the Tory party: see Talk:2022_United_Kingdom_government_crisis#Did_he_actually_resign? for a lengthier discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Amorality in the lead section

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

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

Agreed, I don't think amorality is necessary and given how subjective such a moral claim is, I think there'd need to be an exceptionally strong case made that's he's frequently called such by sources.

I'm responsible for the duplication of cronyism because when the new paragraph about controversies was added it was unclear what exactly the issue with COVID contracts was, so I made it more explicit by adding the wording used by the sub-article's lead ("accusations of cronyism involving") to aid readers unfamiliar with it. I think the duplication is fine in this case, as I believe it's also one of the main criticisms of Johnson, but I'm not set on the wording and open to other suggestions.

Also, JLo-Watson, why do you keep on re-adding the outdated and irrelevant "discuss" tag next to the (now sourced) sentence about Johnson's COVID response? We had a discussion about it at the time concerns about its sourcing were raised, sources from the body were added to the lead, and it's been sitting on the page uncontested without an active discussion since then. If you want to add the tag, you need to start a new talk page thread for it to link to, otherwise it's inappropriate. Jr8825 • Talk 00:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Boris no longer leader of the Conservative Party

Sources: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62068930, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/07/07/uk-boris-johnson-resignation/, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/07/boris-johnson-to-resign-as-conservative-leader and https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/boris-johnson-cabinet-mps-prime-minister-chancellor-b2118104.html. Boris Johnson has resigned from the leadership and no longer has powers within the party (therefore is no longer leader, and should not be listed as incumbent). He however, is still the Prime Minister until the vacancy is leadership is filled and the sovereign appoints them as the new Prime Minister. Why is he still listed as the incumbent leader of the conservative party? UltraaaDev (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Do we have a source for who's now the interim leader? GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

As we know vanishing little about the internal Tory party procedures in these circumstances, it's not even clear if they have the concept of an interim leader. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian says: "However, senior Conservative MPs are pushing back against the idea that Johnson should be allowed to stay in office for any longer and want to see an interim leader in place, such as Dominic Raab." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, in context that does lend some support to the idea that the party can have an interim leader, but it also supports the assertion that Boris remains leader of the party until either his successor is chosen or an interim leader is appointed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I read that as being about the leader of the country rather than of the party…? Bondegezou (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree this should be changed. He might be the caretaker PM until the vacancy is leadership is filled later this year, but he has resigned from his role as the leader of the Conservatives, so therefore should not be listed as the incumbent leader. --89.243.125.209 (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I also agree: remains PM, but is no longer leader. There's been a longer discussion of this at Talk:2022_United_Kingdom_government_crisis#Did_he_actually_resign? where others might wish to contribute. Bondegezou (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I checked the Conservative Party's official website & BoJo is still the leader. Indeed, he's still splashed all over the website. Any attempts to suggest otherwise, would require complete changes 'here' & at other related pages. You can't say one thing in the article's body & say the opposite in the article's infobox. I wonder if an RFC on this entire matter would be required? GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Chance are they're making the most of Boris until they have no choice but to remove him from the website when a new leader is elected. They likely won't update it until October as that's when Boris will step down from his PM role (which, given how fast things are going with three MPs including Rishi Sunak announcing PM bids, could be a bit earlier than October). The issue here is that it's technically untrue as Boris has stepped down as leader (but will remain as PM until October at the latest). I'm not sure what we can do to solve this, whether to wait until he's no longer PM or to tackle it now via "temporary PM, but no longer Conservative leader". It would be interesting to get further discussion here about what we should do. --89.243.125.209 (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the website. It is full of pictures of Johnson. I didn't immediately come across text saying "Johnson is the leader of the party" or words to that effect, but I haven't been through every page! If anyone sees something specific, that would be useful. Best I could tell, however, the website hasn't even been updated in the last few days. Of course, WP:PRIMARY also applies, but a clear unambiguous, post-7 July statement on the website that Johnson is the party leader would settle matters for me (or indeed text saying "The leadership is currently vacant" or some such).

In the mean time, I note most of us agree with the conclusion that he is no longer leader, with one editor disagreeing. Input from further editors would be valuable. Bondegezou (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to state he is no longer leader in the infobox. It will have to be updated later in the year anyway when a new PM replaces him. --89.243.125.209 (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Ultimately I think we need to be realistic in that party websites don't update automatically and shouldn't be considered the definitive source for things like this. — Czello 18:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I see you're asking for more input. I wouldn't have any expectations from the party website. I believe this situation is analogous to Theresa May's departure, where she announced her resignation then stayed on both as leader and 'acting leader'. A brief summary can be found here: "I am today announcing that I will resign as leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party on Friday 7th June". I think you have a similar situation here, just without the date specified, and without the statement from the 1922 committee. All Boris did was announce an election, not a resignation, such is the informality in our politics. We need some way to say he has resigned, without saying what the current situation is, because absent some specific statement, we do not know the current situation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

On that note, I recommend (per status quo) that he be described as still the party leader, until concrete evidence is provided to the contrary. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Someone recently pointed out somewhere that announcing a resignation is not the same as leaving your post. I would expect a statement at some point soon clarifying matters, probably in relation to the leadership contest. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

That’s a useful citation re May, zzuuzz, thanks. It’s a bit uncomfortable if we have to rely on an analogy rather than having citations about Johnson. But it all helps.Bondegezou (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Indeed. There will be a vacancy soon. Both May and Howard announced a date for their resignations, and after that date were both explicitly retained as 'acting' or 'caretaker' leader of the Conservatives, until there was a new leader. We are not at that stage yet. The 1922 Committee is having a meeting on Monday, and you can expect some announcements from them late in the day. Boris will probably chip in again after that. A little patience and all will become clear. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Happy to wait a few days for clarity. I suggest we avoid saying things that are uncertain or doubtful, i.e. that fail WP:V, before full clarity emerges. Bondegezou (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

missing: wallpaper gate

(or wallpaper-gate ?)

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

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

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

"a hundred different ways"

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

Was there a dispute about what Stewart's personal opinion of Johnson might be? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2022

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

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

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

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

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

MOS:LEAD

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

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

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

He’s still PM. Your claim he is still party leader appears to be your personal opinion and unrelated to sourcing or the views of other editors, as per the lengthy discussion above. Bondegezou (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"worst prime minister we have ever had"

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

While I agree, it's best to wait until he resigns officially (after the new leader is elected) before adding this to the lead. Like how the mention of scholars ranking Donald Trump as one of the worst US Presidents was not added to his article until after the Trump presidency had ended. But I definitely agree that Johnson will go down in history as one of the worst UK Prime Ministers as while he did do a few good things, he was far too riddled with scandal. Definitely worth mentioning in the article once Johnson is out of Number 10. --89.243.125.209 (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to think how Alastair Campbell and Malcolm Rifkind would belong in any part of this article, never mind the lead. Trump's article cites the C-SPAN Presidential Historians Survey, which has been running for 20 years and surveys 142 presidential historians. I can't think of any similar UK enterprise, but I do know that Campbell and Rifkind aren't it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, there seems to be no such similar UK enterprise. So perhaps we dare not use the biased subjective opinions of fellow politicians? (Especially loony-left pinko agitators like Malcolm Rifkind?) Martinevans123 (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

While there isn't a similar UK enterprise, rankings are listed in the leads on several Prime Minister pages (e.g. Margret Thatcher's page says "A polarising figure in British politics, Thatcher is nonetheless viewed favourably in historical rankings and public opinion of British prime ministers.") If Johnson is ranked low in a survey in the future, then perhaps then we can add it to the article then. I think it's more than likely to assume that Johnson will be ranked low in rankings and in public opinion polls once he's out of Number 10, but I think we should wait for the next PM to enter office before adding this. --89.243.125.209 (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

"after being elected as a Mayor of London"?

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

I can't see where the article says this, so it may have been corrected already. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It says it during the Mayor of London section of the article, as text describing the picture of Johnson's victory speech in 2008. The text states "Johnson gave a victory speech in City Hall after being elected as a Mayor of London". This just needs a simple fix, it should be corrected to "Johnson gave a victory speech in City Hall after being elected as the Mayor of London". --89.243.125.209 (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected. (I was looking at the main text rather than the captions.) Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Greased piglet

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

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

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

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

Interesting source... "In Hinduism, the boar-headed Varaha is venerated as an avatar of the god Vishnu." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The Hindu is probably the highest-grade media source in India (as I understand it) - even they use the term? Is the current situation because wider use of the term as his nickname would violate Wikipedia policies (if so, then no problem)? It does seem at odds with many other leading global media outlets who directly state that the term is a nickname of Johnson, and consider it notable enough that they include it in their briefs on Johnson? 19:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.18.245.153 (talk)

But it's hardly getting blanket coverage by the press, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

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

• Boris Johnson, greased piglet, escapes yet again – cartoon, The Guardian (May 2022)
• Boris Johnson, the greased piglet, has wriggled free on Partygate, The Independent (May 2022)
• The Times view on Boris Johnson’s survival: Greased Piglet, The Times (Editorial) (May 2022)
• The 'greased piglet' wriggles free again, but this PM's mutinous party still smells blood, The Telegraph (June 2022)
• ... Mr Johnson, dubbed the “greased piglet” for his previous ability to slip out of politically perilous situations, faced the glare of the world’s media at 12.30pm. The Belfast Telegraph (July 2022)

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

• ‘Greased piglet’ Boris Johnson survives as UK prime minister. For now., South China Morning Post (June 2022)
• The Front Page: Boris Johnson resigns - The scandal that finally ensnared the 'greased piglet', New Zealand Herald (July 2022)
• However repentant he now is in public, in private he will be revelling in his knack for wriggling out of the tightest spots like a greased piglet, The Economist (April 2022)
• Yet Johnson, whose nicknames include “Teflon” and the “greased piglet,” clings on to power. Bloomberg (July 2022)
• That would be a remarkable outcome even for the man known in British political circles as the “greased piglet” for his ability to evade trouble, Japan Times (July 2022)
• But the luck of a man once likened to a "greased piglet" for his ability to escape controversies finally ran out ..., The Hindu (July 2022)
• Johnson, greased piglet to the end,... , The Mail & Guardian (July 2022)
• Johnson ducked, dived and dodged with such regularity that the British press referred to him as a 2greased piglet", Sydney Morning Herald' (Editor) (July 2022)

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

Wow. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Would the term meet the criteria to have its own Wikipedia page, like Thanks, Obama, Let's Go Brandon, or Maggie Out. There are as many references to Johnson as the "Greased piglet", as there are for these other articles? Would people be happier with it that way? If someone would start it, I will fill it out with these refs. 78.18.245.153 (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

We do have Piggate, etc. But that was a much more notable "scandal". This is just an insulting nickname? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The articles for Thanks, Obama, Let's Go Brandon, or Maggie Out are also all pejorative, but they are Wikipedia pages? The enormous quantum of references overwhelmingly support "Greased piglet" as a notable term in relation to Johnson. I understand that the editors of this page don't want to include it, but it is quite a gap in the coverage of the topic (given the number of references using the term in relation to Johnson). If you would start the page I will fill it in and am confident it will survive any deletion discussion. 78.18.245.153 (talk) 09:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

It would be a good test. I have now red linked greased piglet in the quote. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks and again, totally understand the stance of the editors on his page, as it is a well-written article and this is a very pejorative term, however, the scale (and quality) of references is so large that it should be covered somewhere. If someone would just start the page, and notify me, I will fill it in. thank you in advance. 09:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request

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

Not notable? Assume you don't mean this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

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