Talk:Boris Johnson/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Number of Children

It is not clear how many children Boris Johnson has. German TV saying at least 6 children?

Perhaps you shouldn’t believe everything you hear on TV. It is easy for a slip of the tongue.

From this page looks like 5? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boris Johnson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130608182354/http://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/Media-Library/Leo-Johnson-partner-PwC-Sustainability-and-Climate-Change-566.aspx to http://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/Media-Library/Leo-Johnson-partner-PwC-Sustainability-and-Climate-Change-566.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Heathcote Williams - political pamphlets on Boris Johnson

Could someone with the necessary Wikipedian pedigree please add the following paragraphs to the Public Image section?

"In 2016, the poet and playwright Heathcote Williams responded to contemporary political events with a pamphlet in the Swiftean tradition, an excoriating commentary on Boris Johnson entitled 'The Blond Beast of Brexit: a Study in Depravity'. The pamphlet was described by a review as "a 20,000-word collage of the most maniacal, hypocritical, and cruel things the former mayor has ever said or done". "

"Later that year, an updated and expanded version, 'Brexit Boris: From Mayor to Nightmare', was published by Public Reading Rooms."

2A02:C7D:5049:D500:A81E:39B7:31A3:9CD3 (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC) an ex-Wikipedian from way back when

References

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2017

ADD: In the leadup to the June 2016 UK referendum on membership of the European Union Johnson adopted an approach which ignored all available evidence and promoted the idea that withdrawal from the EU would make £350million a week available to the UK National Health Service. His subsequent bid for the leadership of the Conservative Party foundered after intervention from Michael Gove MP who stated the Johnson was "not capable of leading". Johnson's subsequent appointment as Foreign Secretary has been marked by a series of ill-considered remarks and reversals regarding the process of withdrawal from the EU. He is widely regarded as arrogant without justification and oafish (with justification). Jhass1 (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Expansion of £350m a week comment

It is important to show his "offer" to spend much of this on the NHS. Lawyers and political observers such as Wikipedia editors will understand there is no such promise but it is important to include it albeit of course without wp:editorialising. Readers can then judge if -in covering NHS spending -he is going outside his remit of Foreign secretary & impinging on the job of a PM. JRPG (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Cuts

I apologise to EddieHugh for undoing the massive cuts of (seemingly) well-referenced material. I'd be happy to discuss here what it is we are trying to do, and why. --John (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@EddieHugh and John: Greetings both and thanks to John for reinstating the deleted portions. I added Rachael Sylvester's excellent piece from the Times about Johnson's being "ineffective and incoherent" on policy issues. I carefully selected a pro-Brexit right wing paper and equally carefully attributed the views. There are plenty more in the Guardian but if you want to hear someone totally out of their depth try the cringeworthy Eddie Mair BBC interview. I would have been sympathetic if he had been ill. It's vital to be prepared for interviews or debates and he wasn't. He has prestige but not the intellect to be foreign secretary and he is an embarrassment. A view shared across the world. Regards JRPG (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

What are the criteria for including a journalist's opinion? The only one that JRPG mentions is the entirely subjective view that it's an "excellent piece". I haven't read it, so I have no view, but that's an inadequate justification. This is an article on a prominent politician; 'I thought it was a good article', 'it was published by ___' can't be enough, or we'd have to include a huge amount, probably on a daily basis. We should include nothing that is just a journalist's opinion. Journalists write to sell newspapers/advertising space – if they are reporting information, then that can be included in this article (the Mair interview could scrape in, if it got a lot of attention), but if they are just writing opinion, then that has no place in the article. JRPG: you give away your position with "he is an embarrassment. A view shared across the world". That's not a good starting point for editing a BLP. EddieHugh (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

(I've re-edited one bit of the article, but it's not the subject of this discussion; it's about clarity and accuracy, not what should be included.) EddieHugh (talk) 10:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The prerequisite is that it must be by a WP:Reliable source. The edit should be properly attributed, not WP:UNDUE and not WP:SYNTH. In practice edits based on the newspapers recommended in WP:Suggested sources#Current news will be respected. Our personal opinions are utterly irrelevant and of course, my comments about it being a good article were for the talk page or "edit reason" only. Anything not meeting these criteria -e.g. from a tabloid source I would remove on sight, irrespective of personal beliefs. Opinion by serious writers has formed reputations since history began. Other rules have developed in Wikipedia over many years of discussion. I've been editing for almost 12 years and am happy that most rules are logical and workable.

Regards JRPG (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

As no one has joined in, I'll respond. What you present is a case for why the opinions could be included, in that they are not against some policies. What I'm looking for is a case for why they should be included. If the argument is just that anything from anyone published in a reliable source warrants inclusion, then I'll add all of the opinions from every journalist who has ever written about Johnson (with a limit of spending an hour or so on finding them, say), but is that really what a biographical article is for? EddieHugh (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

but the argument as I have already stated includes WP:UNDUE ..which limits its length! I don't doubt your long-term capabilities but I think you are trying to edit one of the most controversial pages without as yet fully understanding rules developed since 2001. This is a collaborative venture and most people would be willing to help you. I'll try and put a note on your talk page. Regards JRPG (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Please don't be condescending. Back to the point: it's all Undue; the policy states that "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". That fits the current case perfectly. Again, why should any of this opinion be included? EddieHugh (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I've requested further input on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, as nothing has happened for over a week. EddieHugh (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, compared to the size of our project, our members not all that active in central discussions. I think it could go either way, really. I'd suggest dispute resolution if you can't find consensus. Personally, I'd recommend trying to find a source that summarizes media perception. That avoids the issue of including possibly undue weight on one journalist's opinions. Editorials, columns, and other opinion pieces are generally primary sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Kibbutz visit

Perhaps someone might include that Boris worked on an Israeli kibbutz in 1984, as detailed by his sister here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:51AC:5000:9C33:3B72:C4D4:52A2 (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link but the Daily Mail isn't a source we use much. I try to use Suggested sources where possible.

And regular contributors shouldn't forget to sign :) JRPG (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Ahnentafel

Why did the ahnentafel in Personal life section disapppear, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Chicbyaccident: It was removed by Midnightblueowl with this edit saying Removing unreferenced information; it can be restored if fully referenced. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

This source (trigger warning:requires Flash player) looks like it might have the information in, or it could just be the nuclear family of Stanley Johnson. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Is it perhaps still disapproved by policy? Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The only reason that given was the lack of sourcing. That clip which requires flash player might contain the necessary information. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Buddhist??

@EddieHugh and AusLondonder: Eddie, can I assure you I'm trying to provide an accurate encyclopaedia and I read my sources very carefully. So I suspect does AusLondonder. Have you read the whole source? The exact source wording is:-

"..the British ambassador Andrew Patrick stopped Mr Johnson mid-flow, and before he recited the line "Bloomin' idol made o' mud/ Wot they called the Great Gawd Budd" - a reference to Buddha."

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the poem is not anti-Buddhist? If so, why did the ambassador take the quite extraordinary step of intervening preventing Johnson -a senior politician from continuing? Please don't amend before replying. Regards JRPG (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

As a matter of procedure, the onus is on you to demonstrate that it is in the source, so the tag should remain. "Buddhist", not "Buddist". Yes, I am; it's not even about Buddhism. Adding "anti-Buddhist" is editorialising; and we don't know why the ambassador interrupted (although "Not appropriate" gives a clue). I also ask that you consider if you are being neutral on this article: the source clearly states that Johnson didn't even say those lines from the poem! Adding commentary on something that he didn't say gives the impression that you just want to find and add criticism. EddieHugh (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I thought you only started editing this year and that might explain why we have such very different views on the rules. Please don't take offence -none was intended and I myself have always been willing to accept advice from more knowledgeable editors.

This is a GCSE level description of the poem. I'm an atheist but I think all other editors would regard describing Buddha as an idol made of mud offensive so I don't intend to change it. If you feel strongly, take it to the BLP notice board. In the meantime, I'll add more references to show it was widely covered -and not just by the Conservative supporting Standard. Regards JRPG (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Where to start? An "idol" is an idol, i.e. an image, so obviously that line is about some sort of statue and its physical composition, not the thing that it is an image of. He was interrupted before he'd recited almost any of the poem, apparently, so there's no reason to pick out particular lines that he didn't say. The line on the Buddha is a long way after the point where the ambassador stepped in. The Guardian's account is clearer on what the ambassador was commenting on: ""You're on mic," adding: "Probably not a good idea..." "What?" Johnson replied. "The Road to Mandalay?" "No," said the ambassador sternly. "Not appropriate""... the inappropriate thing was the poem, not a particular line that the Evening Standard for some reason chose. I've altered the wording to reflect this. EddieHugh (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@EddieHugh: I'm really sorry but I'm at a complete loss to understand your objections and I don't think other editors or journalists would understand you either. I'm happy to ask John who has a lot of experience to give his views. In the meantime I will revert to my earlier version. JRPG (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You could just say what you don't understand and ask me... (And in the meantime, if you revert, you should restore the tag, as I mentioned above as being standard procedure.) EddieHugh (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Eddie, firstly thanks for your patience. I have tried but just cannot see any problem with what is there now -which if correct doesn't need a tag. We are a very long way apart. You are welcome to ask for some sort of mediation e.g. from someone like User:TransporterMan who has previously given me sound advice. Regards JRPG (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Problems: no source states it's anti-Buddhist; the ambassador interrupted him with a comment about the poem as a whole, not the Buddha lines. So, the current version – "the British ambassador prevented him from reciting anti-Buddhist lines from Rudyard Kipling's poem "The Road to Mandalay" - describing the words as "not appropriate"" – has a problem with "anti-Buddhist" (unsourced), a problem with "prevented ... lines" (bias in selectively and entirely speculatively picking the worst possible lines, albeit in the source), and a problem with "describing the words" (misrepresenting the source, which clearly links the comments to the poem, not specific words). If you genuinely cannot see these plain problems, then fine, but another editor can, so another wording should be chosen if it is possible to keep the meaning and avoid the problems that another sees. The proposed alternative is: "the British ambassador interrupted Johnson's uttering of some lines from Rudyard Kipling's "The Road to Mandalay", advising him that the poem was "not appropriate"." I see no problems with this version. Do you? EddieHugh (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@EddieHugh: Eddie, whilst I agree in principle with what you are saying, anti-Bhuddist is the simplest description of some well known lines from the poem. Quite astonishing that Johnson or anyone who has read Mandalay didn't know that. I don't use tabloid sources but the Daily Mail has this and the Scum has this and says

The Kipling poem is considered offensive to Burmese people nowadays, as it mocks the religion of Buddhism and belittles the county’s women. FWIW the paper then goes on to remind its readers of Michael Howard sending Johnson to Liverpool in 2004 to apologise for his Spectator article. Both papers are right wing but say that Johnson is gaffe prone. To remove the anti-Buddhist description leaves the article meaningless. I've no intention of changing it or discussing it further but you are free to take it to mediation as described earlier. JRPG (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The sentence would probably work perfectly well even if "anti-Buddhist" was removed, would it not? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course, although "the words" would need to change to "the poem", which would also be more accurate. So: "the British ambassador prevented him from reciting lines from Rudyard Kipling's poem "The Road to Mandalay" - describing the poem as "not appropriate"." How's that, Midnightblueowl, others? EddieHugh (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

That would work fine, in my opinion. It may of course be that the reason that the ambassador urged Johnson not to speak the poem had less to do with any belittlement of Buddhism per se and more the general ethos of imperialism which Kipling's work espouses. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

That's my thinking too (although we won't and can't know for sure unless the ambassador reveals more, which is highly unlikely to happen soon). EddieHugh (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I left it for a few days and there have been no further comments (JRPG has disengaged), so the change has been made. EddieHugh (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@EddieHugh and Midnightblueowl: Hi. I certainly hadn't disengaged and would have responded if pinged butI was quite happy with the original wording. I don't regard Johnson himself as racist or anti-Buddhist but the poem is offensive to Buddhists and as Midnightblueowl suggests -would also remind the Burmese of hated colonial rule. The text you removed makes the paragraph much less self explanatory. I'll add what journalists say caused offence which I hope you will accept. JRPG (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You did write "I've no intention of [...] discussing it further", which I read as disengaging. I've sat through several minutes of Channel 4 advertising to find the original. It's the same as the video in the Sky source. The last line he's shown reciting before the ambassador's "not appropriate" is "The wind is in the palm trees, the temple bells they say". Look at the complete poem: that line is the third in the poem; the "before he gets to the line" (or, in your version, "just before Johnson reached the lines") part doesn't appear in the same verse... it's a dozen lines later. As stated before: this is just media bias and exaggeration in picking out the worst-looking line from a poem, when Johnson was muttering a few lines that he could remember (he wasn't even trying to recite the whole thing, as the video makes clear). If you want a clear account, add something like "Sky news reported that the ambassador stopped Johnson before he got to the line 'Bloomin' idol made o' mud / Wot they called the Great Gawd Budd' - a reference to Buddha";[Sky source] in the original Channel 4 documentary, the ambassador intervenes after the line 'The wind is in the palm trees, the temple bells they say',[Sky source – video] which is 12 lines away from the Buddha reference.[Kipling society source, or similar]" I'd choose to cut your added commentary as unnecessary and part of a NPOV problem with the article, but would settle for the long-winded alternative just given if you insist on having the Buddha lines in. EddieHugh (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@EddieHugh: Your edit of 21st October reduces the sentence to little more than references. As I said earlier, more explanation is needed -see WP:IINFO. I've noted your complaints & made the 1st reference one which highlights the poem's description of Bhudda as Johnson was in a temple at the time. I'm hoping we can agree this time. Regards JRPG (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, although it's better to propose on the talk page first, to avoid the potential for another cycle of reverts. The new version has the merit of highlighting the absurdity of the media accounts, for readers looking between the lines. So not ideal, but ok. EddieHugh (talk) 10:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Degree of deafness

The article states "although he suffered from severe deafness, resulting in several operations to insert grommets into his ears." Severe deafness is defined as having hearing threshold in the best ear of between 70dB and 95dB. Grommets are inserted to treat a conductive loss due to fluid in the middle ear and results in hearing threshold of approx 40dB, usually less. ie a mild or mild to moderate loss.81.105.42.196 (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Haske

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boris Johnson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524113355/http://www.gleeds.tv/index.cfm?video=425 to http://www.gleeds.tv/index.cfm?video=425

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2018

106.67.92.3 (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2018 (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. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 16:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

July 9th 2018 Resignation from office of Foreign Secretary

Boris Johnson has resigned. Article need to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.12.173 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

change font

i think we should change "Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson" to "𝔄𝔩𝔢𝔵𝔞𝔫𝔡𝔢𝔯 𝔅𝔬𝔯𝔦𝔰 𝔡𝔢 𝔓𝔣𝔢𝔣𝔣𝔢𝔩 𝔍𝔬𝔥𝔫𝔰𝔬𝔫" because it looks nicer ed588 20:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

You will want to raise this vital proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Another idea would be to autoplay "Land of Hope and Glory" whenever the cursor hovers over his name. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Johnson's "right of reply"

We don't need to carry so many quotes in this article. BJ has no "right of reply" on this article and we should report what the secondary sources say, which is that he said "fuck business", and not his grotesque non-denial. --John (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't have a right of reply, as this is an encyclopedia. But including only one side of what the sources state (what he reportedly said) isn't balanced or neutral. EddieHugh (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree. What does his quote mean, would you say? My problem is that it's difficult to summarise as it doesn't seem to actually mean anything. --John (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The reply doesn't need to be from Boris. Better from someone else defending him. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. And it shouldn't be a quote, unless the quote itself is noteworthy. There are far too many quotes in the article in general. We really don't need another one. --John (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we agree! I re-added his response because it's in the sources and provides balance, not because the subject of a Wikipedia article has the right to respond in that article. What does it mean? He disagrees with some who claim to represent the business world (I suppose). The important thing is the wording ("fuck business" got attention because of the wording), so the wording he later used adds balance. There are plenty of 'journalist X thinks that Johnson is Y' quotations that could be culled instead. EddieHugh (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, the "fuck business" quote was noteworthy. His non-denial quote was not. I agree with RichardWeiss, that we can report what reliable sources say, if there are any, in defending him. We should not quote him as that looks like a "right to reply". We don't, as you say, do that. --John (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I normally add the 'right of reply' which is the journalism standard of the Telegraph and Guardian which featured a story about a public figure I severely criticised. FWIW including the ROR reduces risk of libel proceedings under English law and is usually worth including. I would only expect a 3rd party to provide right of reply if the speaker lacked capability or was facing criminal charges. Unusually Johnson's attitude to business was completely self explanatory from the quote. JRPG (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we need worry about libel because we link to the ref. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and it's extremely well referenced. --John (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I fully understand all that -and in any case the servers are in the US. In general it is the gold standard accepted by UK Wikipedia:Suggested sources. We should include if and only if the statement needs clarification in the interest of fairness. As I've said, it's not needed here. JRPG (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Possible Reorganisation?

Boris Johnson is a major figure in British politics and while that is reflected in this article by its length and content, it is not, however, reflected by its style. The section regarding his early life, his time as Mayor of London is fine, but the formatting of his tenure as Foreign Secretary is very poorly organised. Johnson (justifiably) has a longer biography on his tenure as Foreign Secretary than any of his predecessors do since at least the creation of the Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (I just read through every one of his predecessors' biographies from 1968). Yet even though he has a longer bio, his article is by far more poorly organised. His is organised by chronology, instead of events and topics (ie Brexit and North Korea) unlike the far shorter biographies of William Hague, David Milliband, Jack Straw and many others. I am proposing an edit so as to make info on his time as Foreign Secretary separate from his time as an MP from 2015. I would also like to edit his tenure and separate it by key events and subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlobalPoliticalCulture (talk • contribs) 20:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2018

This edit is not neutral. Polly Toynbee is not in the employ of the Labor Party as a journalist and the point of that edit was to call her views into question. 65.28.236.17 (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC) 65.28.236.17 (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The lead section of her article clearly says: "She now broadly supports the Labour Party"? But I agree that wording here looks a bit odd. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Her personal support does not mean she is working for them as a journalist. 65.28.236.17 (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree. If no-one else objects with the next few hours, I intend to revert that edit. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Donald Trump and Boris Johnson Street Art.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

This Article is Unquestionably Biased

Reading this article several times, I have arrived at the conclusion that this article contains an anti-Brexit bias. Every single action that Johnson took as Foreign Secretary described in this article includes random criticisms from Johnson, disproportionately from the small minority of people that want a second referendum. This is so bad it is to the point that, the Foreign Secretary section reads more like a critique of Johnson than a biography of his actions and their impacts. Major edits are required.-John — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlobalPoliticalCulture (talk • contribs) 15:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Really? Perhaps the problem is that successful Brexit negotiations winning new markets that Johnson and others promised before the referendum appear concealed from the public. Feel free to add them. On an issue where I do have some expertise, Johnson has compared the EU's prospective longest border i.e. Ireland to that of an internal London boundary. The cabinet can't even agree what form it will take! Johnson doesn't appear to understand the risk of armed clashes between smugglers and troops saying a 'technology' fix is required i.e. 'magic'. The whole country would like to see anything which appears to be realistic. JRPG (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

private life

He's had more than one affair... why is this not mentioned? 98.10.165.90 (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Could you provide any source(s) for that claim (assuming you're not speaking from personal experience)? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The New European (not WP:RS ?) writes "Johnson’s long-suffering wife Marina Wheeler – who stood by him after a string of affairs".[1] While the Daily Telegraph strongly alludes to the latest "close friendship", but when you examine the text closely it only goes as far as "no one could quite believe [she] would be foolish enough to risk her high-flying political career for an alleged fling Westminster’s most high profile philanderer. Indeed, many could be forgiven for wondering how the couple managed to keep their close friendship secret for so long."[2] Seems not quite enough for WP. Rwendland (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

First Term as Mayor of London Alcohol Ban on Public Transport

The 2008 alcohol ban did not cover all public transport in London. It applied to tube, bus, Docklands Light Railway, and tram services and stations. There were other rail services on which alcohol was not banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.233.203 (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Post 2018 & Brexit overlapping

There is existing overlap between these section relating to the suicide vest. Haven't had time to do it tonight but could have a go tomorrow. I suspect Johnson post 2018 will be almost entirely Brexit.JRPG (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I've moved his 'From 2018' comments on Brexit to the Brexit section to avoid duplication.JRPG (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Misconduct prosecution threat

On 22 November 2018 it was announced that Johnson had been notified of a crowdfunded private prosecution for misconduct in public office, centring on his claim during the 2016 Brexit referendum that the UK was unnecessarily giving "₤350 million a week" to the European Union: "Boris Johnson may face private prosecution over £350m Vote Leave claim". Belfast Telegraph. 22 November 2018. The case is being run by experienced lawyers, who may now make an application to a magistrates court—at which point it could be appropriate to add this to the article.Wikiain (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Please excuse my editing your post, but there are WP:RS asserting the same information; linking directly to a fundraising site is unnecessary and looks promotional. EddieHugh (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, here's a piece in The New European, one in The Independent, one in Metro and one at AOL. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

EddieHugh, editing someone else's post is not normally acceptable; you could have objected, asking me to take the material out. The site is several things: (1) an allegation, (2) a statement of intention to take legal action and (3) a request for funding. Presumably it would be ok here if it were only (1) and (2); same as with Johnson's likely media release in response. That it also contains (3) doesn't seem to negate that. The site is the very fact that is being reported, often extensively reproduced as if its author had been interviewed (see the reports linked above by Martinevans123 as well as the site's list of reports on itself). I think it can be located in the area of WP:AFFILIATE and/or WP:RSOPINION. So here again is the site, for the information of Talk: Ball, Marcus J. "Brexit Justice Prosecution". Crowdfunder. Retrieved 24 November 2018. And I think it should be included along with media reports, which would presumably also be of reaction by Johnson, if this matter eventually goes into the article. Wikiain (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I know it's not the done thing, hence the wording of what I wrote above. I still disapprove. WP:AFFILIATE disapproves of it too. So does WP:RSOPINION, given that this is a BLP. So does WP:USERG. So does WP:RSPRIMARY. The site is not what is being reported, the fundraising and its legal case are. The website is merely the means by which the fundraising is being attempted. If it were being attempted via paypal, bank transfer, the sale of raffle tickets, whatever, we wouldn't want to have those details either in the article or on this talk page. The essentials of the fundraising and what's on that website are all available from genuine, uncontroversial RS. So why include the direct link? EddieHugh (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

This does look to me a lot like petitions posted at Change.org and petition.parliament.uk? Only secondary reporting is permitted? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Nottingham University or the University of Nottingham?

I know the former links to the latter, but the latter is the proper name - can this be amended (there is at least a caption that does this) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.173.212 (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Eton Society discussion

The Eton society isn't mentioned in the Eton article, It merely provides a redirect. JRPG (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2019

Please add a link to cronyism when it is mentioned in the intro. It is a relatively obscure term, and an explanatory link would be helpful. 192.41.125.253 (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Þjarkur (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

"Economically and socially liberal"

All the sources for this description precede 2012. From what I can tell, recent RS characterize him as a "populist".[3][4] Furthermore, the fact that Johnson speaks admirably of Donald Trump[5] and favors dragging Britain out of the EU (introducing massive tariffs and destroying British trade) undercuts the economically liberal description. RS also say he has "recently" adopted populist positions on race and immigration,[6] which undercuts the 'socially liberal' claim. Besides FT, other RS also suggest that Johnson's ideology has shifted over time.[7] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Tend to agree. That description should probably (at least) involve past tense. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's the full FT sentence: "His critics scoff, arguing that Mr Johnson's recent populist positions on race and immigration — not to mention his championing of a hard Brexit — have made him an unlikely unifier": not entirely clear, but it looks like the FT is stating what unnamed critics have said, rather than stating anything itself. I don't see anything in the Quartz article supporting his ideology having changed, but it does have "He in turn made a name for himself as a liberal, One Nation Tory".

From Reuters yesterday (24 May): "Britain can forge a 'fantastic free trade relationship' with Europe after it quits the European Union, but can also be a champion for global free trade, lawmaker and Brexit campaigner Boris Johnson said". Isn't that economically liberal? Guardian opinion piece this week: "Johnson is a social liberal at heart (true)"; FT opinion piece from 2016 describing him as the liberal candidate for the party leadership. How liberal he seems depends on what he's compared with, but it's not hard to find recent sources describing him using that term. EddieHugh (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, no FT subscription. If there are more recent sources, I'd suggest they should be added. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Those remarks he's making about trade are similar to the ignorant remarks that Trump frequently makes, and these remarks are inconsistent with every economist assessment which makes it abundantly clear that Brexit, regardless of what potential and amazing free trade agreements are made with the rest of the world (which by most accounts will likely not be amazing), will harm British trade and the economy. Just like Trump, he speaks of making all these wonderful deals while burning all the arrangements that have ensured that trade barriers are as low as they've ever been. The fact that both of them speak of the wonders of their own versions of free trade does not make them pro-free-trade. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian op-ed even refers to all the populist statements that Boris has made that make it reasonable to question whether he's a social liberal (the op-ed insists he still is one). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I share the doubts, but let's hang on. We're about to hear a lot more from him as party leader candidate, which would require a review anyway. Wikiain (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

It's possible that he was sometimes described as economically and socially liberal five or ten years ago, when he was a comparatively obscure politician with no position in national politics and someone people in other countries hadn't heard of, but it's abundantly clear that reliable sources haven't widely described him as a liberal in any way for the past couple of years, when he rose to actual prominence as a Brexiteer, PM candidate and foreign secretary. As the article already discusses, he is most widely known for "racist and homophobic language" and for pandering to the far right, and otherwise for advocating anti-immigrant and nationalist views. It's quite clear that he is, at least today, a far-right politician by any meaningful definition. There is an annoying tendency in Wikipedia to avoid the term far-right merely because we are dealing with British politicians, when the term is used liberally in reference to politicians from other European countries when they advocate similar views on immigrants and other issues, and regardless of how most reliable sources (including non-British sources) actually describe the politicians. --Tataral (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I also note that there seems to be no consensus supporting, or even previous discussion of, the "liberal" description. In any event, considering how old the description and its sources are, how different the position of Johnson is today as a figure in national politics, and how different the perception of him is, it's clearly outdated and doesn't belong in the first paragraph of the lead as a description of his policies today (it could be mentioned in the body of the article that he was historically perceived as more liberal). --Tataral (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The fact that he is the leading candidate for the tory leadership means he is going to have to set out his vision and will get a lot of coverage. I would judge the tone of the coverage in this period before choosing the wording Jopal22 (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Tataral, the consensus comes from it having been there for years; the warning to editors (which you unilaterally – cf. your edit summary – ignored and have now unilaterally removed) had also been there for more than 3 years, diff. There are more recent sources given above for the liberal line. Do you have evidence for your assertion that most RS say that he's actually part of the far right? EddieHugh (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

What we are discussing here are sources for the prominent "liberal" description in the first paragraph of the lead. It doesn't establish any relevant consensus for including this today, under new and very different circumstances, that it was added unilaterally without discussion (same goes for the hidden comment) by someone years ago. The subject of this article derives most of his current notability from the last few years when he has been a prominent figure in national politics and government, and especially from his current status as a favourite to become PM. What he did before that is a parenthesis compared to his later career as a PM candidate and foreign secretary. We would need up-to-date reliable sources to describe him as a "liberal" today, in the first sentence, not years-old sources that discussed a much more obscure person that was perceived very differently. --Tataral (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I fear that we may be entering some POV-pushing territory here. There seems to be an assumption by some editors that Johnston can be a populist or a liberal, but that he cannot be both. Similarly, there seems to be an assumption that he can be a Eurosceptic or a liberal, but that he cannot be both. These ideas are simply untrue. Populism is not the preserve of the far-right but stretches across the political spectrum; with some caveats, the same is true of Euroscepticism. (Moreover, whether Johnston is really a "populist" or not remains unclear; I've not yet seen an academic political scientist describe him as such). Statements like "It's quite clear that he is, at least today, a far-right politician by any meaningful definition" are completely and utterly untrue; this is on a par with those on the American Right who declared that Obama was a communist. Even Nigel Farage isn't considered "far-right" by UK-focused political scientists and pundits, so Johnston, who on social issues is clearly to Farage's left, is most certainly nowhere near the "far-right". He's a "centre-right" figure. Attempts to remove the statement that Johnston is "associated with both economically and socially liberal policies", or to claim that he is "far-right", looks an awful lot like a politically motivated attempt to undermine his chances to win the Conservative Party leadership election and/or become UK Prime Minister. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The current claims are not supported in the article by any recent sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Does it matter if the sources presently cited are recent are not? Throughout his (almost two decade) political career, as an MP and as Mayor of London, he has been associated with economically and socially liberal policies, as the article makes clear. Supporting Brexit does not erase that. Should there be clear evidence that he has shifted his general ideological position, then I'd be very happy to see a change made, but as far as I can see, there has been no such general shift. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

If the present tense is used in the article then, yes, I think it does matter. Or at least this could very easily explain why some editors think caution is required, not that they are "politically motivated in an attempt to undermine his chances to win the Conservative Party leadership election and/or become UK Prime Minister"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't escape the feeling that when editors are actively claiming that Johnston, a liberal conservative centre-right figure, is "far-right", then that is an attempt at manipulating Wikipedia for political purpose. It's FRINGE POV pushing. (And I do say this as someone who certainly does not relish the prospect of a Johnston premiership). As for the suggestion that we should not use the present-tense, I would highlight that the current wording ("has been associated with both economically and socially liberal policies") is of course past tense. We're not saying "he's a liberal"; we're saying that "he has been associated with economic and social liberalism in the past". And we have plenty of good sources backing that up. Now, if people want to argue that we should also state that Johnston has embraced populism in the lede, then I'd be more than happy to discuss that, but we should perhaps do so in a separate section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the article might benefit from the use of sources more recent than Purnell (2011) and Gimson (2012) to support that claim made in the lead section. I was assuming there are some. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Martinevans123, I give 2 more recent sources for the liberal notion above. I don't think it's necessary to provide an 'and he was still being described as liberal 4 years later' update to the article, but perhaps doing so is necessary if some editors/readers believe that updates are required. EddieHugh (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there are. Take a look at the "Political ideology" section; there are a range of different sources provided there testifying to Johnston's associations with certain liberal stances and policies. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. So do you think it would be better to replace "has been associated with both economically and socially liberal policies" with "continues to be associated with both economically and socially liberal policies", or something similar along those lines? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I think we should stick with the status quo (regarding the lede wording) for the time being. He was clearly associated with such policies in the past, but at present, it's not entirely clear what policies Johnston is associating himself with except exiting the EU (and glorifying himself, of course). If the situation changes, and the RS make that clear, then obviously Wikipedia should change accordingly. For now, I think we should play the waiting game. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Boris Johnson has been accused of "using racist and homophobic language" (from the lead) and of "pandering to the far right" (from the article). Of course far-right figures in the UK like to claim, laughably, that they are "centre-right". Johnson is certainly not "centre-right" (centre-right = Merkel) and I've not seen a single source describing Johnson, or at least Johnson when he has been a prominent political figure on the national level, as "centre-right." The same goes for Nigel Farage. On the other hand there are many sources discussing his use of anti-immigrant and "racist" rhetoric and his ties to the far right:

Johnson’s actions are seen as likely to destabilise the European economy, or even threaten the very future of the European Union. Not only this, but he is put into the same category as US presidential hopeful Donald Trump and other right-wing populists who are seen as posing a more general threat to Western liberal democracy. With their readiness to distort the truth, appeal to far-right sentiments and betray voters for their own interests, there is little sympathy in the German press for Brexit campaigners such as Johnson. [8]

UKIP has been described as far-right by countless sources, and increasingly the "Conservative" Party in the UK is seen as influenced, at least in part, by far-right ideology. British political scientist Ian Manners, a Brexit specialist, notes that

the political climate and chaos within the Conservative party has led to the UK government shifting to the right and endorsing UKIPs far-right political agenda. [9]

--Tataral (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Accusations that someone has "pandered" to the far-right is not the same thing as saying that they are themselves far-right (assuming they aren't simply a politically motivated smear, of course). Using racist or homophobic language (particularly in isolated incidents) does not make someone far-right – just look at all the socialists on Labour's hard right being accused of anti-Semitism, for example! I repeat, there are no political scientists stating that Johnston is "far-right". Conversely, there are sources in this article describing him as "centre-right". Contrasting him with Merkel is perhaps misleading because of differences in the German and British political arenas: Euroscepticism has always been a lot more mainstream, a lot more respectable, and a lot more popular in the UK than in Germany. Moreover, as I said before, the idea that Johnston is far-right really is a FRINGE opinion: one you're very much entitled to, of course, much as the Tea Party folk are entitled to their view that Obama was a Muslim Marxist, but it doesn't make it any less FRINGE from Wikipedia's perspective. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not a fringe opinion. Moreover, the question up for debate here isn't really whether we should simply state that he "is far-right". There has been no attempt to add that to the article. The question is whether the first paragraph should include the propagandistic falsehood that he is primarily seen as a "liberal", when most reliable sources discussing him today mention him in connection with issues such as racist comments, anti-immigrant views, "pandering to the far right", nationalism, populism, promoting views and policies associated with the far right/UKIP, and consider him to be similar to Trump and Farage, and so on. --Tataral (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

According to the very first sentence of WP:FRINGE, "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." The idea that Johnston is "far-right" fits that perfectly. You have not provided a single reliable source that supports what is, essentially, a highly idiosyncratic opinion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

1) It's not a fringe opinion. 2) I'm not required to provide any sources for something I haven't even added to the article. We are not discussing the addition of a blanket description of him as far-right (a strawman of yours), but the falsehood that he is mainly a "liberal" that is not supported by reliable, up-to-date sources. --Tataral (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, your claim that Nigel Farage isn't described as far-right by many sources is wrong. Even his defenders acknowledge that "it is now fashionable to describe Nigel Farage as an ‘extremist’, ‘far right’ or ‘fascist’ politician." It's a very mainstream characterization that Farage is far-right, found in countless academic and media sources. --Tataral (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, that just isn't true, Tataral, and if you were familiar with said sources you would know that. Of course, certain op-eds, particularly in the centre and left-leaning press, have (and will continue) to use certain terms against Farage ("far-right", "fascist" etc). But if you were familiar with the academic literature produced by political scientists you'd be aware that they consistently distinguish Farage (and UKIP as it existed under Farage) from the far-right, a term which is reserved either for fascist groups like the National Front (UK) and British National Party or for counter-jihad groups like the English Defence League and Britain First. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

That's wholly untrue. UKIP is frequently described as far-right by political scientists, and I find many examples in Google Scholar. And The Spectator is a magazine that is associated with Johnson's right-wing party, and even the The Spectator acknowledges that many have described UKIP and Farage as far-right. Anyway, this discussion would have to be continued on the talk pages of Farage and UKIP rather than here. --Tataral (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

"UKIP is frequently described as far-right by political scientists". Having read virtually every academic article on the topic while expanding the UKIP article over the past few years, I can tell you that that simply is not true. Now, UKIP has moved firmly towards far-right territory since Gerard Batten took over, that's for sure, but that's not the same thing. But you're right, we are getting quite far off topic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I opened more than a dozen articles about BoJo from the last week, and despite all of the profiles of him, I did not ever stumble upon a RS description of him as "socially" or "economically" liberal. I did however stumble upon a Business Insider article that explicitly said that he was known as a liberal during his tenure as mayor and "prior" to his Leave campaign advocacy. I therefore suggest we change the lede so that it says "As Mayor of London, Johnson was associated with economically and socially liberal policies" or something along those lines. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable solution. --Tataral (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The lede already uses the past tense, though: "has been associated with both economically and socially liberal policies." As specified above, in my communication with Martin, quite what policies Johnston is presently endorsing aside from Brexit aren't quite clear. Let's wait till the dust settles before we make any hasty alterations. If it's clear that Johnston has changed his tune, then we should to. But we mustn't pre-empt that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not sufficient, because the casual reader probably wouldn't even notice that. There is also a question of WP:UNDUE. Perhaps this material should be mentioned in the paragraph that discusses his term as mayor rather than the first paragraph. Why should the first paragraph mention his views when he was involved in local politics but not his views when was in national government and a candidate for PM with much more sway over his country's destiny? --Tataral (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, the present wording doesn't only summarise his views when he was involved in London regional politics (he has never been involved in local politics), it also describes his views as a parliamentarian. As an MP he consistently backed, for instance, LGBT rights legislation. So presenting "economic and liberal social policies" purely as something that he adopted when he was Mayor would be misleading. I also continue to argue that there is simply a lack of real, high-quality material produced by political scientists who specialise in British politics who have argued that he has abandoned his prior ideological commitments. It's possible that he has - but where's the evidence? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Already the second paragraph of the lead discusses his "socially liberal stance" on some issues when he was a member of parliament. I see no need to highlight views he was associated with when he was a comparatively unknown MP in the first paragraph, when he is today mainly known as a Brexiteer and candidate for Prime Minister. It's WP:UNDUE. If the argument is that he is still a liberal we would need up-to-date reliable sources (post-Brexit referendum) that described Johnson the Brexiteer – the man accused of "racist and homophobic language" and "pandering to the far right" as the article notes – as a liberal. I've not seen any such sources. --Tataral (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I refer you, yet again, to the sources that I linked to above. EddieHugh (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

"canditure"

"Johnson endorsed Andrea Leadsom's canditure"

The word is candidature.

"Johnston"

His name is mis-spelled like this a few times throughout the article.

• "Johnston retained Livingstone projects like Crossrail and the 2012 Olympic Games,"
• "Johnston's first policy initiative was a ban on drinking alcohol on public transport."
• All of the paragraph starting with "Writing for Prospect, Philip Collins suggested that Johnston and other Brexiteers" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.18.105.62 (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, these have been corrected. MadGuy7023 (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

COI?

Can anybody explain the claim of COI? We should not be accusing named editors of COI without a reason and the user in questions has never even been warned about a possible COI on their talk page. I propose we remove this if no convincing explanation is forthcoming pretty quickly. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Especially given the source of the edit is an anonymous IP editor with a total of less than 600 edits. Furthermore there are a number of warnings at User talk:194.207.146.167. I'd expect that template to be placed by an Admin, or at least by a named editor of some standing. Who knows. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed it. It can be put back if anybody has anything valid to substantiate it. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

His Muslim paternal great-father

It is necessary to add this too. His great grandfather was a Turkish journalist, practicing Islam.--92.3.95.180 (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

He seemed quite keen to remind everyone when answering Imam Abdullah Patel in the television debate. Words have consequences, apparently. Even words careful hidden away on disabled Twitter accounts: [10]. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Ali Kemal is already mentioned in the article. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

So should Kemal's faith also be mentioned? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

It basically already is, a few sentences later, when it says "Johnson has described himself as a "one-man melting pot" – with a combination of Muslims, Jews, and Christians as great-grandparents". If that's not already clear enough, then sure, adding in the word "Muslim" seems reasonable. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

It's best to avoid drawing attention to it unless sources have, or unless we give the religious affiliation of all his ancestors. The part Korny O'Near quotes is sufficient. EddieHugh (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

What about this recent issue.--92.3.84.172 (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2019

After the sentence "He was Mayor of London from 2008 to 2016, and from 2016 to 2018 he served as Foreign Secretary", mention that he is a candidate for Conservative leader: "Johnson is a candidate for Leader of the Conservative Party in the 2019 leadership contest."

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48699393 ComposerAlex (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he is a candidate, the favourite in fact. And it's fully described and sourced in the article. But I don't think it's worthy of addition to the lead section. When he gets elected, as he almost certainly will, I'm sure that fact will be added very promptly. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Martinevans123, right :).--92.3.84.172 (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Use of his Muslim great grandfather to defend himself after he was challenged over his comparison of veiled Muslim women to “letterboxes”.

This — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.84.172 (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting an addition to the article? This seems a rather trivial, and largely expected, detail in that hour-long debate. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Martinevans123, yes I am. Similar statements are already being discussed above. Maybe such info can be added in the paragraph which mentions about his opinion on Islam and Islamophobia. Thank you.--92.3.84.172 (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe. Personally, I don't see it as an opinion at all, but as a typically evasive political soundbite. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hold on, apart from this ----:> Johnson attended the launch of the World Islamic Economic Forum in London in July 2013, where he answered questions alongside Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak. He joked that Malaysian women attended university in order to find husbands, causing some offence among female attendees

There was more, 'Islam is the problem' and defended Islamophobia as a 'natural reaction'. Was that deleted long ago?--92.3.84.172 (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it was deleted, perhaps for good reason. I don't know. That comment about Malaysian women seems to be more sexist than Islamophobic. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)