Talk:Boris Johnson

Reactions to hospitalisation

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

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

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

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

Merger proposal

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Boris is a PM as well as a MP

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

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

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

Children

I notice this keeps being changed so I'm not going to engage in an editing war, but the minimum number should be 6. He had four children with Marina Wheeler and another with Helen Macintyre, and now one with Carrie Symonds. There are rumoured to be more but it's probably best to just stick with the known ones. Simonr116 (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Whoever is engaging in an editing war regarding this is obviously politically motivated: the sources cited expressly say that the actual number is unknown, but is [i]at least[/i] 6 (although older sources don't include the latest, for obvious reasons). The number should be edited to reflect the true information contained in the sources: unknown, at least 6.86.169.72.81 (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

What is 'political' about the number of children? All that matters is verifiable accuracy, I think. Speculation can be discussed (assuming due weight) in the article, but the infobox should only contain facts. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

He has repeatedly and quite famously refused to confirm how many children he has, as the sources make clear. I agree that the infobox should only contain facts, which is why it should properly reflect the content of the sources. "Unknown", "at least 6", or "6 (known)" would all reflect this, as would removing the "children" entry entirely (as it is not a known fact). Simply providing a number which the sources expressly state is not known to be a fact is not, in fact, a fact - it is mere conjecture. I struggle to think of a non-political motivation for doing so. We must follow the sources.86.169.72.81 (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

But WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH requires we do not draw conclusions from refusal to confirm. Sure there are press speculations, but we need verifiability, especially per WP:BLP. Please explain why you think the need for factual accuracy and compliance with Wiki policies is a politically inspired. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The need for factual accuracy is precisely what I am arguing here. Stating a certain number as a fact when it is not supported by any of the sources, all of which observe that the exact number is disputed, is synthesis. NPOV requires accurately reporting what the sources say, and the sources say that the number is unknown. 86.169.72.81 (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there are 5 confirmed/acknowledged (4 before and 1 born today) and, as far as I can tell, 2 speculated. I think we should stick with the ones he has acknowledged in the infobox. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources say that there are 6 known (4 from a previous marriage, 1 from an affair and 1 today), but expressly note that there may be more (see my comment above).86.169.72.81 (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

We have 4 by Marina Wheeler, 1 by Helen Macintyre[1], and now 1 by Carrie Symonds. However not all sources are confident to report the 5 children and state "Believed to have...". IMO 5-6 seems the most accurate compromise considering this uncertainty.Battleofalma (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, so the consensus amongst the sources is 5 confirmed. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources only agree on 5, others are speculative, so have no place in the infobox. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple press sources confirming the existence of a child with Helen Macintyre, per the court ruling that prevented the parentage from being covered up. That is not speculation. Simonr116 (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

That makes 6 then, not "6 or 7" that the article currently says. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It should say 6. Someone else appears to have changed it. Simonr116 (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The current sources, in the infobox, say this:

The Independent 29 November 2019: "The prime minister has four children with his ex-wife Marina Wheeler and a daughter from an extra-marital affair, but he is also believed to have fathered another child outside of his marriage.

The Guardian 29 November 2020: "It is known that Johnson has four children with his estranged wife, Marina, and it is believed he has one or possibly more offspring from other relationships, though Johnson has always refused to discuss this."

The Guardian, 29 April 2020: "Johnson already has four children with his second wife, the barrister Marina Wheeler: Lara Lettice, 26, Milo Arthur, 24, Cassia Peaches, 22, and Theodore Apollo, 20. ... He also has another child fathered during an extra-marital affair while he was mayor of London. Johnson has repeatedly refused to disclose publicly how many children he has."

The other sources in the article main body provide not support any more children than this. So I'd suggest the words "or 7" should be removed. I think to add the word "(known)" after the number "6" would also require some other source(s). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Having investigated a little further, the consensus from a previous archived talk in November was for it to read "At least 5". It was then changed to "5 or 6" in a mobile edit with no edit summary on 15 February. This was all before Carrie Symonds' pregnancy was announced on 29 February. I suggest we follow on from the previous consensus and that it should now read "At least 6".. Simonr116 (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. That is loaded, non-NPOV and unsupportable per WP:BLP and WP:VER. We should not speculate and cannot draw our own conclusions per WP:SYNTH. All we can support with the sources we have is that he has 6. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. In that case "6" would appear to be the most acceptable solution here and "or 7" should definitely be removed. Simonr116 (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources quoted above literally say "he is also believed to have fathered another child outside of his marriage" (Independent) and "it is believed he has one or possibly more offspring from other relationships" (Guardian). These are reliable sources. Saying "6" here when the sources do not support this is synthesis. NPOV means accurately reflecting the actual sources, which do not support "6". This should be qualified in some way ("known", "(disputed)", "at least" - whatever seems the least loaded), or removed entirely. Otherwise we are knowingly misrepresenting the sources cited. 86.169.72.81 (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPGOSSIP (part of WP:BLP), imploring us to avoid repeating gossip, says: "Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." These sources use weasel words and do not name the sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

6 (disputed) might be a good way of settling this given that it is clearly a matter of public controversy, and Johnson has always refused to give a specific number himself. Simonr116 (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has left out this source from the 'Personal life' section: The Guardian, 21 May 2013: "Macintyre's daughter is alleged to be the second child conceived by Johnson as a result of extramarital affairs, the court heard during hearings last year." The fact that another child was alleged in court means the allegation should at least be mentioned. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem with that source and other sources alluding to another child, though, is that they are extrapolating from what the judge in the court case actually said. The judge said "this is the second time that he has (or may have) caused a woman who was not his wife to become pregnant". It is unclear if this was referring to an existing child, or to Petronella Wyatt's terminated pregnancies (which are mentioned in the article body). Simonr116 (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This issue was settled ages ago when it was decided that “5 or 6” was acceptable. Cummings’ minions shouldn’t be allowed to use the birth of ANOTHER child as an opportunity to REDUCE the number of kids that Johnson reportedly has. I’d prefer it to say “6 or 7” but I’ll settle for “At least 6”. CarlosTheBadger (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you've misplaced his possessive there. But perhaps you have a handy list we could refer to? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel I should point out that the article was at "5 or 6" for some time without complaints. Earlier today somebody changed it to "6 or 7", fairly logically I would have thought. It was only when I attempted to clarify this in the article that I appear to have stirred up a hornet's nest. If people want to say something like "6 (known)" that's ok, but I think the article should mention that he has refused to clarify how many children he has, that can be confirmed by a number of reliable sources. PatGallacher (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@PatGallacher: the infobox entry went up to "7 or 8" at one point, and that allegation is already mentioned in the article, using loaded terms - in a very tabloidy/editorialising sort of way. There is a difference between "refused to confirm" and choosing not comment on them, or on his or their private lives. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It's clear from these previous conversations that the "5 or 6" wording was contentious. As I noted above, after the most recent discussion in November the line was changed to read "At least 5", but then was changed to "5 or 6" without any discussion in February. Simonr116 (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I supported "at least 5" back in December. But I now think similar wording in the infobox needs better sourcing in the article main body at least. Especially in regard to the point you make above about the comments in the judges' 2013 ruling (see para 43 here). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Neither The Independent nor The Guardian explain the origin for their "belief". Non-disclosure from Johnson, about his own private life, can't reasonably be interpreted as tacit agreement with the claims, can it? Especially as there have been prominent court cases about this subject. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Both are likely referring back to the original reports in 2013 which were, in themselves, inaccurate. I suspect Boris Johnson's refusal to answer the question "How many children do you have?" has more to do with him not wanting to publicly acknowledge his daughter with Helen Macintyre, than the existence of another child. We can't be sure of course, but the evidence is definitely inadequate at this stage. Simonr116 (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2020

Please can someone re-add the category, which I notice an editor removed months ago: HonkyDory64 (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)