Talk:Boris Johnson/Archive 10

article content needs changing
It says boris johnson is supposed to be succeeded by Liz Truss today and is still serving as a 'caretaker'; he already has stepped down and she is shown as the PM on that page. So this should be remove, or altered to delineate his transition out and hers in more clearly. 212.139.109.66 (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit request
I think Liz Truss' former role as Johnson's Foreign Secretary should be mentioned in the lead (e.g. "He was succeeded by Liz Truss, his Foreign Secretary."), ala this sentence in the lead of Theresa May's article: "she resigned and was succeeded by Boris Johnson, her former Foreign Secretary." 88.108.44.8 (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Lead mention of confidence vote
@DeFacto, if we're going to describe the outcome as Johnson "won" rather than "survived", then I think it's necessary to include the few words that @JLo-Watson was in favour of, i.e. "but was left politically weakened". Otherwise it implies Johnson won a convincing victory, rather than it being effectively the start of the end for his premiership. I don't think there's any issue with "survived", and personally think it's a better combination of concision and precision, but I don't object to a longer version that combines "won" + "but was considered to have been left weakened". Jr8825 •  Talk  20:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It was a vote of confidence which he won by a very clear majority - why would we want to portray that any other way? Would you describe a 3-2 cup final win as final that was 'survived'? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A cup final is between two sides seeking to win. A no-confidence vote is something you either survive or lose. It's common language ; if anything I presume JLo-Waston's objection is that "survived" is often synonymous with winning a no-confidence vote so doesn't effectively convey the insecurity of Johnson's position afterwards. Jr8825  •  Talk  21:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * But it wasn't a "no-confidence vote", it was a "confidence vote", which you win or lose. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's just semantics. Call it a no-confidence vote or confidence vote, it's the same thing. In the English language it's common to describe the target of such a process as "surviving", there's nothing inherently wrong with this so it's not an NPOV issue. My objection is that "won" on its own doesn't make it clear that at the time (and now in hindsight) commentators widely described it as weakening Johnson. Jr8825  •  Talk  21:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. He may have won the confidence vote but he won it by a slimmer margin than predicted on all sides. He was then forced out the following month and although it is clear that he wasn't removed solely because of the Pincher scandal, I believe that an (uncareful) reader may arrive at this conclusion. JLo-Watson (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In the UK at least, wrt a confidence vote, in common parlance they are won, or lost . -- DeFacto (talk). 21:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Either word is acceptable, both are used by reliable sources in this context. (There's no compelling reason to avoid "survived" in favour of "won"). However, "won" by itself is inadequate as this article perfectly illustrates. Jr8825  •  Talk  21:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether it was won or lost is binary and factual. Saying it was survived when it was won is editorialisation, as your last link admirably demonstrated. Wiki policy frowns upon that practice. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Having slept on it and looking at it again today, I think either word is fine and I'm happy with it as it is with "won". I've also changed my mind and I think extra analysis about his weakened position isn't important enough to get sliced into the lead, particularly given space constraints/need to balance out WP:RECENTISM. It's valid analytical/expert commentary but would fit better in the body. Jr8825  •  Talk  16:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The Queen
Boris Johnson's condolences or any possible plans involving her funeral should be mentioned in the article as they unfold in the upcoming days. 172.58.206.132 (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * His response better belongs at Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II. Jr8825  •  Talk  07:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Post Prime Ministarial career needs references
See title TheWikiJedi (talk) 05:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Foreign Secretary
Hi, I have shortened the title in the lead from Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to Foreign Secretary, per WP:COMMONNAME. AmbroseGreypaw (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Mention of Ukraine should be in the lead
Boris Johnson has an Order of Liberty medal from Ukraine, yet there is no mention of his support of Ukraine in the lead whatsoever. Per Joe Biden, I think his support of the country should be mentioned in the lead. 88.108.44.8 (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm open to this suggestion. Jr8825  •  Talk  15:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! It's information that is more than worthy of lead inclusion, especially given the fact Johnson received a medal by Ukraine for his support of the country. You can't have a lead summary of Johnson's premiership without mentioning Ukraine as he has talked about it as one of his main three accomplishments (alongside Brexit and the vaccine rollout, both of which are already mentioned in the lead) for some time now. So with all this alongside his medal in mind, it would feel strange for Johnson's support for Ukraine to not be mentioned in the lead whatsoever. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That may well be, but what matters is not our own impressions, but what reliable sources say. You'll find it easier to gain consensus for this addition if you can link a few articles from high quality newspapers that describe Johnson's Ukraine policy as a defining feature of his premiership. Jr8825  •  Talk  20:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I did a very slap-dash search for recent articles about Johnson's departure/legacy in three RS I regularly use (FT, Independent, The Economist) and none of them seemed to treat Johnson's Ukraine policy as an important part of his legacy. Ukraine was hardly mentioned in the articles I came across, and where it was, it was described as being the main feature of his last few weeks in office, when he was focusing on "promoting the projects he wants to be remembered for" (The Economist). I was expecting more emphasis on Ukraine than I found, but I suppose the Ukraine war happened relatively late in his premiership. Sources:, , , . So I'm less supportive of this idea than I was initially, but obviously this was a very narrow search and if someone wants to dig deeper for sources it might be a good idea. Jr8825  •  Talk  21:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * These are all solid points! I do agree with you that Ukraine has been mentioned more often in reliable sources as one of the projects Johnson wants to be remembered for. But the fact Johnson received an order of merit for his support of the country and yet there is no mention of Ukraine in the lead at all is still a bit odd. And I don't know what exactly Joe Biden has done differently to Boris Johnson in regards to Ukraine that warrants Biden's lead mentioning it and not Johnson's. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think these are the best arguments for including Ukraine in the lead. An honour doesn't make something inherently leadworthy, especially as it has to be measured relative to all the other significant things that have happened in Johnson's life. Comparisons with other articles are often disregarded on Wikipedia (see WP:OTHERCONTENT & this essay for an explanation of why this argument is often considered weak).
 * That said, I only looked at 3 different media outlets, so it's very possible other assessments of Johnson's premiership say his Ukraine policy is significant. Also, his significance/popular reputation within Ukraine is worth considering, too, if there's commentary on that published in reliable sources (the common theme here is we need to follow what has already been written in sources, rather than coming to our own judgements).


 * The main guideline on what should go in our leads says the section should reflect the relative emphasis of content in the article itself, and there's a lot of other things crammed into this article. At the moment, the only prime ministerial policies in the lead here are 1) Brexit negotiations & NI backstop, 2) suspension of Parliament, 3) COVID-19 response and 4) scandals leading to his resignation. Other policies such as levelling up and the Afghanistan withdrawal are excluded, so that gives an idea of what kind of bar we'd be looking for. Again, the best thing to do, if you have the time, is to have a look through major newspapers or academic commentary and do a more thorough review than my extremely slap-dash one, as this will provide evidence in support of (or against) putting Ukraine in the lead. Jr8825  •  Talk  16:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite busy but I'll see what I can do! I would also encourage other editors here to look through major newspapers or academic commentary to see if they can find evidence in support or against putting Ukraine in the lead, if I am unable to do so. I know comparisons with other articles are often disregarded and was not necessarily trying to compare it, I just thought it was a bit strange for Ukraine to be mentioned in the lead to Biden's page and not Johnson's. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree a mention of his support for Ukraine (and the praise he's received for it) is warranted. It's one of the more notable parts of his premiership, and probably the thing he's been praised for the most. — Czello 20:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, also the fact he received a medal for said support. A bit odd that there is a mention of Johnson receiving a Ukrainian Order of Merit in his infobox, but no mention of his support for the country in the lead. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support mentioning Ukraine in the lede. See the lede of Premiership of Boris Johnson for an example of how this could be done. I don't believe his receiving of that award belongs in the lede, however (as it has been awarded to many foreign politicians prior to Boris), but his policy responses do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:72BB:1A01:640E:4579:A9DF:7CC3 (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree the medal doesn't need a lead mention as you are correct in stating that other politicians (Joe Biden, for example) have been awarded it prior to Boris. However his policy and support for Ukraine is definitely worth a mention in the lead. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Noting that has today been blocked for block evasion, sockmaster unspecified. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Any progress regarding this proposal? Assume not if the user has been blocked for block evasion. JLo-Watson (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit request
and currently redirects here. Please add a hatnote to handle other uses.

Please add

-- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 15:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2022
Change that he is not priminister Cheesyboi72 (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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) 23:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Can the category Boris Johnson family be added to this article?
Boris is the namesake family member of this category and thus should be added to it. 92.15.144.174 (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Johnson is a controversial figure
This whole paragraph is purely tendentious propaganda. Dozens of MPs are 'controversial' to their haters, but the ludicrous site masquerading as an 'encyclopaedia' doesn't describe them as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.156.110 (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit, so feel free to bring balancing material to the article, supported by reliable sources, of course. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The paragraph mentions what Johnson's supporters say and what his opponents say. I feel it's balanced. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Graham Brady's recent comments about Boris having enough MPs
This makes the whole situation a tad confusing. When he announced he would not be standing, Boris Johnson said it was because he would not have enough support from MPs to govern effectively. But now Graham Brady has alleged that Johnson did have enough MPs backing him to enter the race against Rishi Sunak. This doesn't add up IMO, given how Boris didn't want to resign in July, he doesn't seem like the kind of person to miss out on an opportunity to become PM again. But I don't think we'll ever know for sure if he had the numbers or not. 92.15.144.174 (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Johnson, at the time that he withdrew, said that he had 102 supporters: BBC as example source. This claim was met with scepticism: eg, Huffpost showing that it's not completely neutral. Brady's comment backed up Johnson. Maybe Johnson withdrew because he thought that he wouldn't beat Sunak; maybe he wanted another holiday; maybe he did it for the good of party and country. No one knows, but the scepticism and Brady update aren't worth including in the article. EddieHugh (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to have the 100 MPs to get onto the initial ballot, which both Sir Graham and one of his deputies have separately stated Boris did have, and another to have clear acceptance across the parliamentary party. The existence of a strong block opposed to Boris wasn't going to go away even if he did win the election any more than every MP jumped behind Liz Truss. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these two replies, has given a lot of clarification. I agree that the scepticism and Brady update aren't worth including here. --92.15.144.174 (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

" In April 2022, Johnson received a fixed penalty notice for attending one of these gatherings"
Can this be changed to " In April 2022, Johnson received a fixed penalty notice for attending one of the social gatherings"? 92.15.144.174 (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Not News
Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YEARTEST, there are a lot of items in the "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" section which are irrelevant and have no real bearing on Boris Johnson himself. Furthermore, very few positives are included, which leads to neutrality concerns as well. Some sections' equivalents don't seem to appear on a lot of other PMs. I would like the following sections removed altogether, and placed in the Premiership article: spending plans; legislative agenda; 2021 energy crisis; 2021 party conference speech; Starmer slur controversy; new hospitals; June by-elections. Furthermore, the 2019 general election needs to be expanded. Spa-Franks (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This ludicrous soi-disant 'encyclopaedia' is as 'neutral' as an Australian umpire would be in an Ashes Test match. It's full of left wing propaganda. Just look at the 'controversial figure' paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.156.110 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It'd probably be better to make some constructive suggestions for improvements, rather than solely criticising what's already there. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I did make suggestions - I named several sections that should be moved from this article to Premiership if included at all. Spa-Franks (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2023 (Nadine Dorries)
Dear Wikipedia editors

I was horrified to see that this article on Boris is so one-sided. It says Boris has lied, when I personally know he has never lied in his life, him being the most gentle soul. It also suggests that his deposition as Prime Minister was the result of the Chris Pincher incident, when you should know that he was forced from office only because Rishi Sunak stabbed Boris in the back, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the Chris Pincher incident. I must ask that the article clearly mentions that Boris got all the big calls right and details his many achievements in full.

Your sincerely

The Rt Hon Ms Nadine Dorries 2A00:23C6:1A04:FF01:E884:A0B7:68EB:8044 (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime Phone  ( open channel ) 00:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Why do I need to provide a source? I known Boris for many years so I know what I'm saying is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:1A04:FF01:E884:A0B7:68EB:8044 (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether or not you are the real Nadine Dorries, I think this article about Boris is not too one-sided as there is the sentence "Supporters have praised him as humorous, witty, and entertaining, with an appeal stretching beyond traditional Conservative Party voters", and only mentions lying in the context of his opponents accusing him of doing so. As far as I can see, there's nothing here that outright accuses Boris as being a liar, so it seems pretty balanced to me. --92.15.148.117 (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Intro need shortening
The intro is far too long for a quick orientation and a new section "Deeds" or something should be made at start, making it more readable. Zzalpha (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Intro: used to be American-born British
The intro used to be as stated until it was edited out by a sock of a banned user calling themselves "English Patriot", and IMHO it should be reinstated. My contention is that it is relevant given the various controversy about nationals that started under his tenure as PM, and even if that is questionable, he held US citizenship into his 50s so it's not as if it's a simple technicality. But as much as the reasons for its removal seem questionable, I'm loath to make a unilateral decision about putting it back. Thoughts?

I suppose I should say at this point I don't generally agree with Wikipedia's approach to citizenship/nationality, but it's what it is and this is a notable example of something that probably should follow those guidelines but doesn't. --Vometia (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "American-born" has been removed by several editors, including me. Last time, my edit summary was: 'We don't do that. See MOS:BIRTHPLACE: "Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability"... it's not relevant to Johnson's notability, so shouldn't be in the lead'. What are "the various controversy about nationals that started under his tenure as PM" and why does that make his birthplace/citizenship relevant to his notability? Simply, though, I see no circumstances in which the nationality of a PM of the UK would be relevant to that person's notability – being a PM is sufficient to be notable. EddieHugh (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Opinion poll in "Partygate scandal" section
In my view a lengthy paragraph featuring a poll by The Independent in this section may carry undue weight.

The paragraph starts: "In April 2022, a poll by The Independent found 27% of voters who voted Conservative in the 2019 general election claim they are less likely vote that way again if Johnson stays leader. Labour were at 40% with the Conservatives at 34%. Johnson rated -28 (33% claim he does a good job and 61% bad) worse than -19 the previous month. About 65%, including 46% of Conservative voters maintained Johnson should resign if he gets more fixed penalty notices or gets severe criticism in Sue Gray's report and 63% maintained his apologies were not good enough. 28% believed he did not know he was breaking the law during a Downing Street birthday party, while 63%, including 52% of Conservative voters, maintained he was lying."

As per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, I don't feel this level of detail is needed in an encyclopedic biography. Why is it important, for example, that Labour were at 40% with the Conservatives at 34% in April 2022. Opinion polls fluctuate regularly. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Almost a year on, is there any evidence that this poll was of any importance? If not, cut it (it probably shouldn't have been added). EddieHugh (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I also agree and have removed it. SmartSE (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Remove double link
Uxbridge and South Ruislip is linked twice in the lead, this is unnecessary. 79.66.89.36 (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

State?
Why do people keep removing the New York in his infobox (birth_place section)? I thought it was customary to include the state of birth when someone is born in the US. Derpytoucan (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * See Infobox person#birth place. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Another double link in the lead
Russian invasion of Ukraine is linked twice in the lead, this is unnecessary. 79.66.89.36 (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ - I removed the link from the fourth paragraph of the lead section. DDMS123 (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Yet another double link in the lead
COVID-19 links to COVID-19 pandemic in the last paragraph of the lead, which is already linked earlier in the lead. The last link should be changed to COVID-19 as the pandemic article is linked already. We don't need two links in the lead for the same thing. 79.66.89.36 (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks for pointing this out. SmartSE (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem! --79.66.89.36 (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Number of Children
It is stated in the article that Johnson has 7 children. There has always though been speculation that he has another child (and so we should instead put that he has at least 7 children). It has recently been announced that Carrie Johnson is pregnant so he will soon have another child. Yet, even media sources note that this will be "at least his eighth child". E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/19/boris-and-carrie-johnson-expecting-third-child-with-due-date-in-just-a-few-weeks, https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/as-carrie-announces-pregnancy-people-are-wondering-exactly-how-many-children-boris-johnson-he-has/ar-AA1bpDT8?ocid=Peregrine and https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/boris-johnson-children-how-many-carrie-b2208313.html

Surely we should change this to "at least 7" and then "at least 8" once his third child with Carrie is born? JLo-Watson (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose. This would be construed as bias. Johnson has publicly stated he had then six children, thereby denying the existence of anybody else. Since he made that statement, Boris and Carrie's second child was born. Saying "at least 7" implies we think he is lying with no evidence to suggest so and thus would be construed as bias. That's been a huge problem on this article, there's too much WP:NOTNEWS criticism. Spa-Franks (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In fairness, Boris merely tacitly acknowledged when asked by a reporter rather than himself - on the record - stating "I have six children" for example. There are many journalistic sources which also write that it can not be fully confirmed as to the exact number of children Johnson has - and they themselves use the phrase "at least". As one of the articles above says, Johnson has never really sought to volunteer the information as fact, and has only really acknowledged a number mentioned somewhat in passing by an American reporter. On this basis, it seems that there are grounds for the "at least" language - simply because there is ambiguity - and I think it would be a stretch to arrive at the conclusion "at least" therefore means "Johnson is lying". JLo-Watson (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A politician denying something should never be the grounds to state it as fact.
 * Stating that the number of children is disputed would be much more accurate. HollowSoul (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Speculation, especially from a left-wing newspaper such as the Independent, is not a reliable source. Spa-Franks (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Independent is considered to be a reliable source as per Wikipedia's list of perennial sources. Cortador (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To suggest that the Independent owned by an Oligarch billionaire is "Left Wing" would be entirely dishonest and actually reveals the dishonesty of the person making such a nonsense claim. The Independent is listed as a reputable source by Wikipedia; and this "speculation" is from a wide range of sources.
 * No surprise that someone trying to shield Boris Johnson would be as parsimonious with the truth as he provably is (he is a convicted liar; this is a matter of public record). HollowSoul (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest we change it to "At least 7" - and then "At least 8" once his next child with Carrie is born. As JLo-Watson pointed out, there's multiple reliable sources using that phrasing. Cortador (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There are many reliable sources that indeed use this phrasing. I am sure a user could provide a list of reliable sources which do use this phrasing and put some more on the Talk page - the webpages I linked were just a quick search, I imagine there are at least fifty to one hundred "reliable" sources which indicate that the number of children Johnson has is disputed. Ultimately there is ambiguity on this and simply putting a number when it reliable sources point to its potential inaccuracy surely is not best practice, hence my suggestion of the "at least" language which did appear on Johnson's page for several years until it was changed following the (insufficient) TV interview I mentioned above. JLo-Watson (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd also say @HollowSoul's comment is very true. It is unlikely that any politician would want to admit on public record that they have more children that were conceived as the result of affairs etc. This article also well documents that the veracity of Johnson's public statements are also questionable at times, which may account for the reason that reliable sources also note that he has "at least 7" children at present. JLo-Watson (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A quick search does indeed bring up a number of sources that Johnson has "at least" that number of children i.e. confirming that the exact number is in doubt:
 * https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2021/12/09/boris-johnson-uk-second-child/6445384001/
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-61227622
 * https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/boris-johnson-minister-of-chaos/619010/
 * https://www.npr.org/2020/04/29/847813195/british-prime-minister-boris-johnson-and-fianc-e-carrie-symonds-announce-birth-o
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/world/europe/boris-johnson-baby.html
 * https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-politics-johnson-baby-idUKKBN20Q1JO
 * https://apnews.com/article/ce4a72cb74958c35b4a9e01b72679103
 * https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/former-uk-prime-minister-boris-johnson-and-carrie-announce-they-are-having-another-baby/GMEWZRA6TBDRXKB6CL7IFKDKKM/
 * https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/boris-johnson-children-how-many-carrie-b2208313.html
 * https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/19/boris-and-carrie-johnson-expecting-third-child-with-due-date-in-just-a-few-weeks
 * All of these ten sources are on Wikipedia's list of reliable perennial sources. Citing all of these would be overkill, of course. We can cite maybe two or three. Cortador (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cortador, they are all news media though, with their own agendas for editorial mischief-making at Johnson's expense. How many did you find that didn't qualify the number with "at least"? What do the more scholarly sources say? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have issues with these sources, which are considered reliable here, feel free to start a discussion for each of them. You can the respective links here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
 * If you are having general issues with this system, I don't know what you are doing on Wikipedia.
 * If you are interested in what other sources, scholarly or not, have to say about this, feel free to look it up. I'm not your personal research assistant. Cortador (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cortador, I don't have any issue with the individual sources themselves, and as we know per WP:BIASED 'reliable' does not necessarily mean 'unbiased'. The thing I do have an issue with here though, in a BLP article, is the cherry-picking of sources, the bias of which align with what you want to say in the article. What you need to do is to also cherry-pick sources which do not qualify the count with "at least", and see what balance you have.
 * Per BLP, our role is to write responsibly and not use contentious or loaded language, or terms that lack precision. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are interested in what other sources, scholarly or not, have to say about this, feel free to look it up. I'm not your personal research assistant. Cortador (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cortador, it's not me trying to make the case to add "at least" to the number, that is you. Surely you intend to show that the balance of reliable sources support your view. To do that, you need to show that you've done due diligence and show how many reliable sources you found that didn't find it necessary to add that. As it stands, we can only assume you cherry-picked just the sources that support your personal view.
 * Remember, we shouldn't attempt to lead the reader with news-media-style editorialisation, we should just use clear, direct language and let the facts speak for themselves. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not my job to dispel whatever bad-faith assumptions you are making. I refer you to my reply above. Cortador (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you wish to challenge an article on Wikipedia you have to be your own researcher. Currently you have failed to prove that Johnson's number of children is not disputed. Which is the entire point of accurately reflecting that in the article. HollowSoul (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Media will always have an agenda. By your reasoning you'd ban all news sources.
 * Curious how you seem perfectly happy to excuse Johnsons own agenda?
 * The neutral accurate position is to simply state the fact the number of children is disputed. People can work out the bias of the various sources for themselves. Without your attempts to conceal the doubts about convicted liar Boris Johnson (matter of public record and prosecution). HollowSoul (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You want "more scholarly sources" to discuss the number of Boris Johnson's children. Seriously? What academic would waste their time studying a notorious liar and cheat (ask his ex wives and the Met Police who finally had to prosecute him).
 * The simple fact is a wide range of sources approved of by the Wikipedia editorial policy dispute the number of children Johnson has. The lie would be to claim the number was not disputed. Any other position is simply a biased attempt to shield Johnson from more evidenced criticism. HollowSoul (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just change it to 8 once his third child with Carrie is born. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and clarified that the number of children is not clear, as we have an absurd number of sources stating just that. Cortador (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You added loaded wording which violates WP:BLP. That some elements of the press speculate that he has others does not mean that he has. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There's nothing "loaded" about stating that the number of Johnson's children is unclear, and neither is it speculative. It's the opposite - stating that there's at least seven (soon eight) children removes speculation about the precise number. These "elements of the press" you are talking about are ten reliable news outlets from multiple different countries.
 * If you honestly believe that there has been a a WP:BLP violation, you can report it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard Cortador (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact is that the number of children IS disputed. To mention that it is disputed is not in itself bias. It is recording the dispute.
 * Any attempt to remove mention of that dispute would be erasing facts and a real sign of bias. HollowSoul (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "loaded" about quoting the media disputing the number of children Johnson has. What IS Loaded is someone laughably trying to claim the Independent is "Left Wing". HollowSoul (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Since those trying to dispute the issue feel that Johnson can have some authority on this; instead of "disputed" have "acknowledged" and have a small section regarding the debate on how many children he has? HollowSoul (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with using "7 (acknowledged)" with a "See Family and ancestors" link following. That is the section that already mentions Johnson's uncertain number of children. However, the uncertainty has to be mentioned in the infobox, otherwise it won't accurately reflect what sources are stating about the children, and because so far, neither User:Spa-Franks nor User:DeFacto has made any effort to provide a reason why Johnson's claim about the number of children should take precedent over what an abundant number of reliable sources state other that stating their personal dislike for some news oulets. Cortador (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cortador, per WP:INFOBOX, infoboxes are only for summarising key features of the page's subject. The detailed discussion and sourcing belongs in the body of the article. That there are journalists who speculate about some of the values in the infobox does not make that speculation a 'key feature of the page's subject', and so it would give it undue weight to include it in the infobox. The number does not need qualifying in the infobox as that job is done in the appropriate section in the article which this infobox field is summarising. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Johnson having exactly seven children is speculative. Stating that a plethora of reliable sources disagree with that is not speculative. The infobox must reflect the body text, and currently it does not.
 * I also recommend you yourself actually read the undue weight section you linked to: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." Johnson having "at least" seven children and not exactly seven is a significant viewpoint, as backed up by plenty of sources. Cortador (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cortador, none of the sources you mention have hard evidence for their speculation, they seem to base it on an interpretation of a vague statement by a court. This is a BLP and the subject's assertion about the number carries weight.
 * If you think your view about the speculation is a significant viewpoint, then you need to support that, rather than keep reasserting it without substantiation, as I suggested previously, by comparing the weight of it in the sources to the weight of sources that do not speculate that way. Without that work being done, there is no point going around this loop again. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * For information from reliable sources to be included in an article, said sources don't need to cite yet more sources in turn. You have a fundamental misconception of how citing on Wikipedia works.
 * The subject's assertion is already mentioned in the article.
 * If you want to contradictory sources - which are considered to be reliable by Wikipedia's standards - to be brought in, go look them up yourself, and don't expect others to come up with sources for your claims. Cortador (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cortador, sure, non-controversial facts can be asserted in the article as is, and possibly with the support of just one good reliable source. On the other hand, very controversial or sensitive opinions and speculation (such as the one being discussed here) need to balanced, by weight, with alternative takes on the same known data and circumstances. This requires comprehensive research amongst the available reliable sources, and the different takes presented in the article per weight and attributed to those who state those views. Then they can be neutrally summarised for the lead, if important enough, and the barebones (possibly with an explanatory footnote if they are unclear on their own) added to the infobox. For now, all you have shown is one side of the discussion, and as we know, per WP:NPOV, that is not good enough for Wikipedia and certainly not good enough to draw any conclusions from for the lead or infobox. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * All sources (which is a 10+, not "one good reliable source" as you disingenuously claimed above) we have agree that Johnson's number of children is in dispute. There is not "controversy" here - that is something you claimed without backing it up.
 * If you think there even is another side to this, provide sources. You have not done that, and instead have repeatedly demanded that others do your work for you and back up your claims. Cortador (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cortador, you misread my post about the sources, I said that if it was a non-controversial fact we may not more than one source to support it. But, a) it is not a fact, and b) it is very controversial.
 * I agree that some news media outlets are interpreting the know information in different ways to others. The problem is that we do not know the weight of each interpretation because, so far, you have only presented sources supporting one of those views. WP:BURDEN is very clear, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material - so I suggest that your best course of action is to show the weight for each side of the coin, and see whether a consensus to change the infobox content develops. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I did not misread it. There is not "controversy" here - that is something you claimed without backing it up. Back it up. I'm not going to chase hypotheticals for you. The burden is on you to support your claims, not on anyone else.
 * I also, again, recommend to actually read what you link to: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." We have 10+ reliable sources. The claim is verified. The burden is satisfied. Cortador (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cortador, no - as I said, that only works for facts. Here we are talking about an opinion (not a fact) based on speculation of something said by a court. Per WP:NPOV opinions need to have due weight, be attributed, be balanced against alternatives and then be neutrally summarised. You haven't addressed any of that yet. Even when you have, consensus is required to add that as new content to the article, and, for now, that is lacking. To improve the chances of getting consensus, I suggest you try and convince us that you have also weighed-up the sources that do not interpret the vague court statement that way. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources state that Johnson has "at least" seven children. Said sources don't need to cite yet more sources in turn. You have a fundamental misconception of how citing on Wikipedia works.
 * if you think there are "alternatives", back it up. The burden is on you to support your claims, not on anyone else. Cortador (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Protection
I think this page needs protection from vandalism. Jord656 (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Requests for an increase or decrease in the level of protection should be submitted at WP:RFPP. Keivan.f  Talk 21:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Resignation
just been reverted for mentioning his resignation in the intro, should I put it back? Jord656 (talk) 07:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, because his resignation is already in the lead. It doesn't need to be in there twice. Grachester (talk) 07:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How is it in the lead, i dont see anything? Jord656 (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The last sentence of the fourth paragraph of the lead reads "He announced his resignation in June 2023." Grachester (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2023
Summary requires updating - he is no longer an MP. 51.148.144.184 (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * he is still currently an MP according to the House of Commons website, until such time he should remain in this article as MP Jord656 (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Resignation
article states he was MP, but is there not some HoC procedures that happen first, so still technically MP? Jord656 (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * This is correct and the factbox as I write this is incorrect. Of course, he has announced his resignation today, June 9. But he has not ceased to be an MP today, as the factbox currently suggests. However there are clearly editors who have a different understanding and it would be great if they could share their thoughts to see if it is possible to reach a consensus. Hobson (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's worth noting that at some point the House of Commons website will confirm the date on Johnson ceased to be an MP - see this example for one former MP https://members.parliament.uk/member/1529/career Hobson (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * He did resign, "with immediate effect". The Guardian says this, as does the BBC, two reliable sources per WP:RSPSS. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Boris Johnson has announced his resignation. He has not yet stopped being an MP, and the article currently suggests he has. He actually can't stop being an MP immediately. There is a Wikipedia article explaining this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resignation_from_the_House_of_Commons_of_the_United_Kingdom Also, the process is explained at this reliable source https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/disgraced-mps-neil-parish-imran-23876605 which sets out the gap between an MP announcing they are quitting and actually stopping being an MP. It is also explained at this reliable source: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-disgraced-mps-head-for-the-chiltern-hundreds/ . When Johnson does actually stop being an MP the date will be made clear, and perhaps we can return to the issue then. Hobson (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is entirely correct. He is still currently an MP. Despite having announced his resignation, this will not be made effective until the procedure which you link above has been carried out. The factbox is currently not correct. 2A02:C7C:FC21:6E00:6466:AB59:D91A:21E1 (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And the reference to "triggering a by-election" needs removing SacroHull (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Has not resigned as an MP on June 9
Although Boris Johnson issued a statement on June 9 saying "I am stepping down forthwith and triggering an immediate by-election", that doesn't mean that he stopped being an MP on June 9 (any more than the by-election takes place June 9). As made clear at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resignation_from_the_House_of_Commons_of_the_United_Kingdom and https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06395/, MPs cannot directly resign. In practice they can vacate their seat by being appointed to an office of the Crown such as Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds or Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead, but that hasn't yet happened. At time of writing, Boris Johnson remains an MP. It's possible an appointment will be made before midnight tonight, but it hasn't happened so far. Therefore it would not be correct for this article to claim that he stopped being an MP on June 9 2023. I would also point out that the article does not provide a reliable source for the claim that he stopped being an MP on June 9 2023, merely that he announced his resignation on this day. Hobson (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I must take the last comment back as I see the Sky News report linked to does claim he resigned "with immediate effect". However I'm afraid Sky got this wrong. At some point the appointment will be made and the day he leaves the Commons will become clear. I suspect it's going to have to be Monday now. Hobson (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Many news sites have got this wrong. There's no procedure to 'resign with immediate effect', other than the death of the MP. SacroHull (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Appointment as balliff of the Chiltern Hundreds
Should we put in his info box that he is now baliff of the chiltern hundreds, although I am aware it may change tomorrow with Nadine Dorries Jord656 (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect use of "lead" vs led
Under Post-PM activities the following sentence "On 9 June 2023, the publication of his 2022 Prime Minister's Resignation Honours lead to a public feud with Rishi Sunak" the word "lead" should be replaced with led. 173.9.62.53 (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ SnowRise let's rap 04:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Remove the word disgraced
Some of you may have noticed that the word disgraced has been added onto the main page of Boris Johnson, whatever your views of Boris Johnson are, I don't think the word disgraced should be on there, in my opinion, it has to be removed. 82.19.40.217 (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have removed it. SmartSE (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Investigation by Committee of Priveleges
Currently the investigation of Mr. Johnson by the Committee of Privelegs is split between the sub-section headed partygate scandal and a rather long and unorganized section headed Post-Premiership. Now that the Committee has produced it's report and has for the first time in history recommended to Parliament that a former PM misled the house and is in contempt of the house, this investigation deserves it's own section.

The section should note the referral on 21 April 2022, by the House of Commons, without division, the matter concerning whether Mr. Johnson had misled the House and whether that conduct amounted to contempt. It should include that the committee was made up of four Conservative MP's, two Labour MP's and one SNP MP. It should include the Committee's conclusions that Mr Johnson

a) Deliberately mislead the House

b) Deliberately mislead the Committee

c) Breached confidence

d) Impugned the Committee and thereby undermining the democratic process of the House

e) Was complicit in a campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the Committee.

It should include that the committee would have recommended but for Mr. Johnson's resignation that he be suspended from the House of Commons for 90 days and that it recommended that Mr. Johnson should not be entitled to a former Member’s pass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrobertmiller (talk • contribs) 00:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Should we change from politician to former politician
Given that Boris Johnson is no longer a member of parliament, shouldn't we change the description from politician to former politician. 82.19.40.217 (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd say that Johnson still qualifies as politically active, even if he does not hold a political office at the moment. Other articles are treated like that as well e.g. Trump and Obama are still described as politicians. However, if Johnson withdraws from politics in general (which isn't clear yet), Id' say that that description should be changed to "former politician". Cortador (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Nothing at all against the honourable profession (or calling) of a politician as such but it truly, and quite evidently, takes a lot to assess one as no longer one. Death could be nearly foolproof. A rapid search did not scare up many, if any, instances of sources calling BJ a "former politician." They probably know better. -The Gnome (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Suspension
This text has been added today here: "On 15 June 2023, as per the verdict from the Commons Privileges Committee's report, Boris Johnson has been suspended from the party for 90 days." This is not possible, and is not supported by the source, as Johnson is a no longer an MP. Additionally, "suspension" from the Conservative Party was not something that could have been recommended by the report in any case. Presumably Johnson is still a full party member. Oh, and it's not 15 June any more. So I think that addition should be reverted. 86.187.165.78 (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * , thanks. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

"Deranged" and "complete tripe"
The Independent reports this: "Mr Johnson lashed out by claiming the committee had reached a “deranged conclusion” to deliver “the final knife-thrust in a protracted political assassination”. .... Responding to the verdict, Mr Johnson called the committee “beneath contempt” and dismissed their findings as “complete tripe”. His decision to stand down in Uxbridge and South Ruislip means he will avoid the 90-day suspension." Perhaps the tripe comment could be added, together with an image if required. 86.187.224.53 (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The committee thing is already reported a-plenty and the article itself is groaning under the weight of Johnson quotes. Perhaps we should wait for something more striking. -The Gnome (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Daily Mail
He has now got "a job" at the Daily Mail, with a cosy 'six-figure' salary:. But he's already broken the rules. 86.187.235.35 (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Greetings, 86.187.235.35. You ignored or failed to notice the warning at the top: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boris Johnson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Your comment is about Boris Johnson. It does not help the article in the least. -The Gnome (talk) 08:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair to IP, they do provide sources for their claims which could be included in the article. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 09:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The remark was posted up in a manner quite fitting for a gossip page. I presume we can do without such intense partiality ("job", "cosy", etc) here. In fact, we are obliged to act with as much impartiality a possible. That is all. -The Gnome (talk) 08:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * They're just facts. We're obliged to add facts to articles, aren't we. Sources other than the Daily Mail could easily be found. And were. 86.187.225.2 (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Gnome, please don't tell people what you imagine they might have "ignored or failed to notice". The job as a Daily Mail columnist, the six-figure salary and the breaking of the rules, are all material facts about Johnson that any reader of this article might reasonably be expected to want to know about. In fact a paragraph with this information has already now been added to the article and is not in any dispute. I'd suggest the six-figure salary should also be mentioned. One might expect this Talk page to contain comments about Boris Johnson?? 16:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Above contribution by 86.187.235.35 who's under a 3-month article-specific block since 3 April 2023. -The Gnome (talk) 08:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Gnome, did you "ignore or fail to notice" that was a IP range block on a dynamic IP? 86.187.165.78 (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll quote the non-electronic text of the blocking notice in its entirety. This IP address is currently partially blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference: 17:08, 8 April 2023 Favonian changed block settings for 86.187.128.0/17 blocking the pages Édouard Stern and Gravitation (book) with an expiration time of 3 months (anon. only) (Long-term abuse: WP:LTA/BKFIP) Go on.-The Gnome (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a dynamic IP. Those who use it have no choice as to which IP address they will be allocated. Those who now have to use it can't be held responsible for the edits made to the pages Édouard Stern and Gravitation (book) three months ago? Or for any long-term abuse that occurred before then? 86.187.165.78 (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And the "above contribution", as you put it, wasn't made by 86.187.235.35. It was made by 86.187.173.73. Thanks. 86.187.165.78 (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Υοu are bringing additional information as to the nature of your IP, yet you see fit to call me up because I "ignore or fail to notice" it, even if it's not there in the first place. All this would not have whined if you've had simply put up the info. But, no, it has to be personal. -The Gnome (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the comment you made after your "Greetings" above was wholly unfair. Do you still maintain what you said there, that: "Your comment is about Boris Johnson. It does not help the article in the least"? And was this true because the IP was "under a 3-month article-specific block since 3 April 2023"? Thanks. 86.187.225.2 (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The comment opening this section remains a gossip-like tidbit entirely unworthy of appearing in a Wikipedia page. If I want to bring up an item of information I consider worthy of inclusion in the article, I will most certainly choose a very different and actually very simple approach. That's what constructive editing is all about, as far as I am concerned: Leaving our personal views about the article's subject at the door and coming in here to do collegiate work. That is all. -The Gnome (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC) P.S. Me calling out the fact of an IP been blocked has nothing to do with any of my remarks in this section. Read carefully, please. No "because" written or implied. -The Gnome (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah, the IP was blocked. Nothing to do with anything. So why mention that? Your comment was about IP editors. It does not help the article in the least. 86.187.225.2 (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boris Johnson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. The fact that you're stuck on this specific admonition, means you have not understood it. When talking about how to improve the article and whatnot, we will be of course talking about its subject, indirectly. What we are not meant to do here is start discussions about the subject as if this is a message board, a gossip column, or a news page. The initial post reads like a putdown from someone who dislikes Boris Johnson and although each editor has or might have their own personal views on Johnson, we are not supposed to bring them here, in the talk page. That is all. That is the extent of my intervention. End of story. Create a dozen sequels to that; nothing to do with me. -The Gnome (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC) When a contributor has been blocked, we bring this information to the attention of the readers. This information has nothing to do with the article's subject  but it's still a legitimate input. Anything else? -The Gnome (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "When a contributor has been blocked..." wow "The fact that you're stuck on this specific admonition, means you have not understood it." lol 86.187.160.68 (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Happy Fridays You deserve it.
 * Yep, stay in denial; that's your prerogative. The fact remains as I wrote and as you copied in neon green letters, for which thanks, and which I will quote back to you once more. When a contributor has been blocked, we bring this information to the attention of the readers. That's the discipline in Wikipedia. And this, of course, means, as everyone can understand, that when it turns out the specific contributor has not been actually blocked ("dynamic IP," etc), we also bring this to the attention of the readers; we update & correct, in so many words. Which someone else, not me, did (and good for them). There! That is all. Nuance and logical derivation are scarce nowadays, I know. But we're supposed to do better in Wikipedia. Cheers. You shall have the last word. -The Gnome (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Cortador for adding "very high six-figure sum". That is all. 86.187.229.98 (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Regarding Johnson's number of children
Should this article refer to the number of Johnson's children as "seven children", or as "seven acknowledged children"? Cortador (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Additional information: Johnson had for a long time declined to comment on the number of children he has. At the time it was known that he had children from multiple marriages as well as an extramarital child. In 2013, an appeals court stated further that Johnson had another extramarital child. Due to this ambiguity, news outlets regularly reported Johnson as having at least X children instead of reporting a specific number, which the article reflected at the time. In 2021, Johnson stated that he had six children (this was before he had an additional child with Carrie). At one point after this statement, the number of children as mentioned in this article was changed from (then) "at least six/seven" to "six/seven" due to Johnson's denial of further children. This led to an unresolved dispute how to frame Johnson's number of children.


 * Option A: state that Johnson has seven children (status quo).
 * Option B: state that Johnson has seven acknowledged children.
 * Option C: leave the infobox field for "children" blank. (Added by User:Czello)
 * Feel free to suggest other options. Cortador (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Tagging users previous involved in the discussion: JLo-Watson, Spa-Franks, HollowSoul, DeFacto. Cortador (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Option A which is verifiable, Option B is weasel wording and to be avoided per WP:WEASEL. I would imagine you'll find someone making a smart aleck comment in a newspaper article, which is why we prefer to avoid newspapers as sources and prefer academic sources. WCM email 08:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's remotely true in either respect. It's not WP:WEASEL wording as defined by that policy (i.e. when we use vague attribution in wikivoice), because the statement (however much it feels loaded with implication in a broader societal, value-judgment sense) has proper WP:WEIGHT in sources, an thus is WP:DUE.   As to "we prefer to avoid newspapers": newspapers are one of our single-most commonly utilized variety of sources, and are used across vast numbers of articles on all manner of topics. Sure, for some MEDRS and other empirical topics we'd give more weight and prominence to academic sources where both were available and/or in conflict, but that's just not remotely the situation here.  Newspapers are more than adequate (if not in fact the ideal sort of) WP:reliable sources to site to for discussions about a politician's family, to the extent we have to discuss such a topic.  S<b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 10:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note for any closer, this RFC is now invalid since it has been refactored by the OP after commenting had commenced. WCM email 11:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I was wondering whether editing the options after people had commented invalidated the RfC. Both your vote and mine now are in response to an option that no longer exists. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 12:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @HollowSoul asked me to improve the wording of the RfC, which is within Wikipedia's RfC guidelines. That aside, the criticism voiced (lack of academic sources and verifiability) isn't affected by that. Cortador (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You didn't improve the wording, you totally changed the meaning, you can improve the wording on an RFC but good practise would be to use strikethrough so its immediately apparent what the changes were. WCM email 14:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but both users that !voted before the change are clearly aware of it, and can change their responses, so what's the issue here? It's not ideal but this does happen sometimes, and generally when changes are made super early in the process, as here, it is not seen to "invalidate" the process, provided changes can be easily made. (WP:NOTBURO). Also, maybe I'm mistaken, but wasn't it Option B alone that was altered, not Option A? Anyway, let's just simplify this: ,  are either of you now inclined towards Option B over Option A, as they currently stand? If so, just say so bellow this comment and any partway competent closer can easily take account of that: I don't see how this situation is likely to melt anyone's brain. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 19:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Weasel wording is to deny that the number of Johnson's children is disputed for clearly partisan reasons.
 * Stating the number is disputed from multiple sources is the only accurate and honest way of mentioning it. HollowSoul (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Option A per WCM. B does appear to be more weasel-y. A is more verifiable. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 08:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Option B: the wording "at least seven children" is used by a large number of reliable sources domestic and abroad, such as USA Today, BBC News, The Atlantic, NPR, The New York Times, Reuters, AP News, The New Zealand Herald, or The Guardian. Cortador (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Rather than saying "at least seven" I would prefer it was changed to "seven acknowledged Children". Then it covers both claims on both sides. HollowSoul (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. I have modified option B accordingly. Cortador (talk) 09:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Option A. Not too difficult a choice. It represents the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, as opposed to publications that tend to mingle the personal with the political or to the insinuations of impropriety often deployed against opponents in politics. Per WP:BLP, we should most certainly steer clear of such pap, no matter how much noise is publicly made of it. This is an encyclopaedia; not a collection of gossip and tidbits. -The Gnome (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Which of the sources I listed above do you consider "pap"? Reuters? BBC News? And which ones do you recommend instead? Cortador (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Some forensics, then. USA Today article: "During a court hearing in 2013 it was disclosed that he had fathered a daughter during an affair when he was London mayor in 2009". Pap. What was "disclosed" in some court does not make it in any capacity official. A witness can assert, i.e. "disclose," anything without substantiation. BBC report: "A source in the meeting said Mr Johnson had joked about knowing about the high cost of childcare - he has fathered at least seven children ". Pap. Reporting on a closed, cabinet meeting, the reporter inserts an arbitrary claim without evidence. We need proof; not assertions of the "at least" trope. The Atlantic profile: "[H]e has (at least) six children by three women". Buzzer! Now, we're looking at six children. What do we do with the seven figure? Pap. Let's see if your next source presents a more solid front. Ah, the NPR article: "Johnson, 55, is the father of at least six children". Oops! That six-children spoiler, again. Pap. In the Reuters article the arithmetic offers a figure of seven (second child by Carrie Symonds plus four with Marina Wheeler plus one -or "at least one"- which makes seven overall, and which only leaves you hoping on the basis of that "at least"). Yet, we're in Option A. More wobbly legs in that article: "He...has always declined to comment on how many children he has." Pap. Johnson does not comment so the paper does not truly know, i.e. it can only speculate. Yet, you seem committed to have in a biography pap such as "he has fathered at least one other child outside his marriages," to borrow from your Associated Press report, when that wording denotes confusion. We do not know, is what AP essentially says. The Guardian informs readers, if one dares to use the verb, that "the [newborn] baby will be at least the eighth child" of Johnson. So, now, we have to deal with another figure, of "at least" eight children. This is mayhem. And your New Zealand Herald reveals that although "The Independent reports he may have also fathered a second child with [Macintyre]", well, "neither party has confirmed the rumours." Place emphasis on the last term: rumours. All the sources are reporting rumours. Which, to Wikipedia, are pap. You want Wikipedia to post up rumours about a living person's private life, because reliable sources are putting out rumours? I'd suggest you challenge the WP:BLP policy first. -The Gnome (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, you do understand that the reason those figures are different is because they were published at different times (years apart in some cases) and therefore the most recent child was not yet in existence when some of those sources were published? You're misrepresenting what is actually going on here: this is not a case of wildly divergent claims: every single one of those sources you are suggesting are inconsistent actual says the exact same thing, if you adjust for the date: that Johnson had six children that he acknowledges as of last year (and seven as of this year) but there are broadly reported claims that there is at least one more. It's not a BLP violation to share information that is a matter of public record and speculation, even if the certainty remains in doubt.  In fact the very next paragraph in WP:BLP after the one you selective cited above makes this unambiguously clear:
 * "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." (emphasis in original)
 * And while I don't want to clutter the page further, that language is followed by examples about a politician's private family life that are functionally identical to what we are discussing here, almost down to the word. The appropriate approach here is very clearly outlined in the very policy you keep citing, and it's not the approach you are urging. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 21:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not "misrepresenting" anything. WP:BLP in the case of public figures, gives two quite relevant examples. (The fact that you did not quote them, does not mean you misrepresented something.) I'll insert the allegations about Johnson's children in both examples. 1st example: "John Doe has at least six/seven/eight children with Jane Does." Is the matter of John Doe's children important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, stick to the facts: "John Doe has seven children." I put it to you that the number of Boris Johnson's children is not important to the article and that anyone proposing the inclusion of allegations should try and support the opposite.
 * 2nd example: A politician is alleged to have had many children. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had many children, not that this actually occurred. Same thing. I put it to you that no "public scandal" has ever occurred in Britain or elsewhere concerning specifically Boris Johnson's number of children. Scandals in Johnson's career are extant, proven, and numerous; the children's number is not amongst them. And this is where the issue rests. -The Gnome (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, you and I can probably agree at least in this aspect of the issue: I don't personally think the number, provenance, or circumstances of the births of Boris Johnson's children is a particularly noteworthy (or for that matter, interesting) subject. And you're right--by comparison to the world of discussion regarding the man, any "scandal" connected to the topic, if indeed that is even a fitting word, is small potatoes. But I think you will also agree that the policy does not invoke the words "noteworthy" and "relevant" in the sense of "according to Snow and Gnome's idiosyncratic impressions".  Clearly the application of those terms is meant to be based on a WP:WEIGHT analysis. And that's where I feel our hands are tied, because people do care about these things and a pretty significant number of high quality sources have implied that there are at least significant questions and coherent arguments (arising out of journalistic inquiries) that there are other children.  That's why I lean towards flagging it in the infobox.


 * But you know, keeping everything in perspective, it's not going to make or break the overall reliability of the article, and I'm a little concerned we're starting to bludgeon the discussion here a wee bit, so I'm going to pull back for real this time and let my argument stand with that; I have thoughts on other prongs of the discussion below, but nothing that is so necessary it justifies my sucking more oxygen from the room. Good debating with you, TG; appreciate you hewing closely to WP:CIV and good nature despite the spirited nature of the discussion. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 08:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Option B (probably?) I understand the concerns about quasi-salacious tone, but the fact of the matter is that the speculation about additional children is out there, and we (quite appropriately) discuss it in this article. And we surely should not be obfuscating relevant details just because we think the most accurate wording feels a little suggestive; we're not making these allegations ourselves, merely reporting on what WP:reliable sources say, and a non-trivial number of high quality sources say it is a matter of open inquiry, with the lowest figure being seven. Besides, HollowSoul's adjustment to the language ('at least seven' --> 'seven acknowledged') greatly alleviates any innate prurient implications.  In the end, WP:NOTCENSORED, even the context of BLP.


 * The only concern I have is that it's not clear what context this RfC is inquiring after. Nowhere in the current version of the article do we use the phrases "seven children", "at least seven children" or "seven acknowledged children".  We have a section which discusses all acknowledged and purported children, but we don't have that exact phrase.  So are we talking about the infobox parameter here?  If so, I'd say go with "7 (acknowledged)", possibly with a footnote, per the above: the infobox, like the rest of the lead, is supposed summarize and reflect the article content. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 11:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The discussion came up when the number of children in the infobox was changed to (then) six, as Johnson has stated that in an interview. The "Relationships" section currently states that Johnson denies having more than six children (plus one born later and one now on the way). Depending on the outcome of this RfC, the infobox wording will be changed or retained. We should then also rewrite the "Relationships", as the infobox should reflect the content of the article body. Cortador (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Edit: Option C (first choice), Option B (second choice): per discussion below, I'm now in agreement that the smoothest solution here is to just remove the figure from the context of the infobox, where introducing the nuances of the sourcing is problematic. I would not support this approach but for the fact that I don't think keeping the number of children in the infobox is particularly useful information likely to be helpful to the average reader at a glance in itself, especially without the relevant context.  This !vote should not in any way be construed as support for changes to the prose section itself, which is robustly sourced and WP:DUE.  <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 00:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Option B Option C : The way I see it, it’s straightforward. Johnson is reported by multiple reliable sources to have more than seven children. Option A would omit this. Thus, option B is the most suitable. 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  11:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Since there is contention on this, leaving the infobox field empty seems reasonable enough. 〜  Festucalex  •  talk  11:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So, in the encyclopaedia's biography of a living person, we're supposed to inform the reader, essentially, that the biography's subject has (or probably has, I cannot tell which is worse, actually) an unknown number of children? Does this sound remotely in line with what the relevant policy contains? It is quite explicit on this kind of tattle. It actually directs us to omit information rather than opt for "contentious material". Everyone should revisit the policy's section titled "Presumption in favor of privacy". -The Gnome (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Your own link goes to a section mentioning "contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced". That doesn't apply here at all. We have a plethora of sources that are considered reliable. Cortador (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not much wrong with Festucalex's revised suggestion, as above. -The Gnome (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Option A, but. If he is known to have seven children, state that in the first instance, without a vague, unexplained insinuation. If there are rumors or allegations that he also has children he has not acknowledged, and those are reported substantially by reliable sources, go into more detail on those allegations later (who alleged it, why, how much support is there for it, whether he has denied such allegations, and so on). Stating it like that is treating it as fact that he has additional unacknowledged children, and unless there is hard, incontrovertible evidence like a paternity test that they in fact are true (in which case we should just up the number of children), we can't do that. So, known facts in the lead, and then, if there are notable allegations, those come later with explanation and detail. And as always, if a numeric figure is in substantial dispute or requires explanation, leave it out of the infobox and rely on the article prose to detail it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * At least 7 children (8 once third child with Carrie is born) is my preferred option so some (adapted) version of Option B would be my preference. I do not support status quo given that I was the creator of the original discussion on this topic! JLo-Watson (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A — saying he has seven acknowledged children is the same as saying he has seven children. He has seven children. Period. There is no need to add an adjective.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:red">(talk)</b> 14:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A The sources that has provided above appear to be speculating on rumors, something Wikipedia needs to refrain from, particularly with living people.  I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 16:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you base that assertion on? Cortador (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm sorry, I dream of horses, but that's just not how policy works in this area. Many disputed facts that might be labelled rumor or conjecture are nevertheless relevant to Wikipedia articles, and the line between what constitutes a "rumor" and what is a "disputed fact" that is encyclopedically relevant is far too subjective for Wikipedia to have a blanket rule that "we don't discuss rumors".  WP:BLP does give us guidance on how to use extra caution in these circumstances, but that guidance has been clearly met here (specifically through the very same sourcing you want to dismiss).


 * Meaning no offense to anyone in particular, but there seems to be a fair bit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT going on here, rather than following well-established policy on the level of sourcing and attribution necessary to report on such controversial topics--which unfortunately we just have to do as a matter of course here. I've already responded three times here in the first day, so I'm going to call my involvement for now, but I really hope this discussion moves towards policy and away from hand-wringing about saying something unflattering about a politician, however understandable that hesitation may be. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 19:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Option B When a prominent man like Johnson, Eastwood, or Putin has a bunch of children but the public doesn’t know the correct number (in the latter’s case, he allegedly has two younger daughters in addition to his adult daughters. That’s why his infobox says “at least 2”. Eastwood’s says “at least 8” and has a whole article about it) it’s the most diplomatic course to say the given number but leave open the verifiable possibilities by saying at least. That’s what I’ll stand 10 toes down on. Trillfendi (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Greetings. I hope you understand that what you correctly surmised about the situation actually supports quite strongly Option A. "[T]he public doesn’t know the correct number," you say, which means there are not enough reliable sources out there to inform the public. Ergo, this piece of information, if one dare call it such, is certainly not worthy of inclusion here. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It is not even a reliable source, in itself, i.e. without proof in sources]. If sources do not report something, or if not enough sources report it, then it's not our place nor our mission to post up that something. The WP:BLP policy is crystal clear and crystal strong. -The Gnome (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources report on Johnson having "at least" seven children. "At least", not exactly. Option A assumes that it's exactly seven, not at least seven. Cortador (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Twenty-five children is a figure that's implied by "at least seven children" exactly as eight children would be. We're asked to ignore Wikipedia policy here in this RfC but I, for one, cannot ignore the inequalities in high school math. So, if seven is the prevalent solid figure, seven is what Wikipedia allows and what elementary math supports. I concede we should delete the word "exactly" if it rears its head. -The Gnome (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No one assumes the man is running around like Nick Cannon having kids monthly. But he does have a reputation for sowing wild oats. Trillfendi (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * These remarks do not help. They do not move the discussion forward. -The Gnome (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't have a policy of citing "solid figures". It has a policy of citing what reliable sources report. Cortador (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * When it comes to biographies of living persons, Wikipedia, and quite rightly so, sets text rather differently. We editors should be constantly aware of this important distinction. -The Gnome (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's also hyperbolic and inaccurate to suggest that "at least seven children" implies "twenty five children"; the two statements are not mutually exclusive as a matter of formal logic, but that is a far different thing that saying that the one "implies" the other. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 04:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If the word "implies" reads uncomfortably, it's because any number above seven is actually, formally included in the inequality "seven or above" or, as the proposed wording wants it, "at least seven". We could replace "implies" with "could be denoting". The fact remains that the sources offered by the initiator of the RfC are talking about "at least six children", "at least seven children", "at least eight children". We could change Wikipedia's page coloring to yellow and pile all that up on the article. But then I, for one, would rather not remain in the project. -The Gnome (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Option A. Option B appears to be based on speculation from left-wing media. I have always disputed the neutrality of this article in any case and saying "well, he says he has 7, but we probably know better" is not only weasel-y, but biased. Spa-Franks (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t help that he himself left ambiguity about the number of children he has or doesn’t have. Trillfendi (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The proven fact so far is not that the biography's subject has muddled the waters or caused in any way the so-called "ambiguity." A private life is a private life, except if it's about a public figure causing scandal. The fact is that the biography's subject has never stated anything that deviates from the figure of "seven children." (A note should also be made about WP:BLPSELFPUB and how the person's utterances might be assessed). -The Gnome (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Here at the ranch of Wikipedia, a public figure's private life is part of their biography (within reason of course, we don't go putting their addresses and what not) whether people like it or not, which always includes the number of children they have. Now back in late 2019, Johnson himself refused on record to disclose exactly how many children he had when he was lambasting single mothers, despite one of his baby mamas being a single mother, until NBC's Savannah Guthrie pressed him on it. Trillfendi (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Again: How does this help? How can the behavior of the article's subject in matters of his private life be a factor in a Wikipedia discussion? Boris Johnson's utterances are not policy. [shiver] Neither are his clam ups. And we're not prosecutors demanding a clarifying statement "or else". -The Gnome (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * When you set up an RfC, you should provide information to participants. I don't know how many children Johnson has or why it is an issue. I know that there is some dispute about the number, but don't know anything else. TFD (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I was also confused as to what we were discussing here when I arrived, TFD. As for background, you can find the information and sourcing here.  And it seems that we are not discussing whether to make changes to that section, but rather how we should frame the number in the infobox: currently the relevant field just reads "7", and the question is whether we should instead summarize with "seven acknowledged".  At least that's what I've gathered from the OP. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 04:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * When is comes to the infobox causing more harm than good in the transmission of information, we should be leaning towards improving the main text, if necessary, and doing away with infobox contents in some way, streamlining them, or anything else that's helpful. I like infoboxes! But not when they act procrustean. -The Gnome (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm gonna agree with you here too. Usually I am very wary of arguments for reducing the profile of the infobox, both because of the history of disruption across the project surrounding such issues and because I've personally found that 9 out of 10 of such arguments I have observed at RfCs put aesthetics before pragmatics. But in this case, I think I have to agree: when I think about info that is likely to be highly useful in a compact summary to the average reader of a biographical article, number of children does not jump out at me as being particularly vital. Where the children themselves are notable, obviously it makes sense for them to be in the box.  And in certain edge cases where the amount of progeny of a figure (say a monarch) has heightened notability, sure, maybe it's a useful parameter.  But I can't say as I genuinely feel it makes a whole lot of sense for the average BLP.  Hmmm, food for thought.  <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 09:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added additional information regarding the background of this dispute. Cortador (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I note that the infobox with the list of Johnson's known children is "sourced" to two gossip magazine pages. It hardly elicits confidence in us stating however many children he has if we're working on that level of citation. Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The current sources in the infobox are regarding the children are articles from The Times and BBC News. The Times and BBC News are considered reliable sources as per Wikipedia's list of perennial sources. If you think these are "gossip magazines", you can challenge the reliable of these sources via the page I linked above. That said, I don't know where in the infobox you see a list of children. Only Lara Johnson-Wheeler is mentioned explicitly. Cortador (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I should have been clearer. I am talking about the infobox in Boris_Johnson which is sourced to Hello! (magazine) and an Irish fashion magazine. Black Kite (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Jeez, yes those should be removed or replaced as soon as possible. SmartSE (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I misunderstood that. That said, whether or not the article needs a list of the children and how that list should be sourced isn't the topic of the RfC. Cortador (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it undermines the statement that "we must say he has 7 children exactly" when some of the sourcing for that statement is useless while we have reliable sources (i.e. the BBC) that regularly use "at least". Black Kite (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Cortador (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment in light of the discussion above between Snow Rise and the Gnome, I've WP:BOLDly added a third option for leaving the infobox field blank as 1) the disputed nature of this complicates the infobox, clearer detail can be added to the article body and 2) it might not be considered useful information for an infobox. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 09:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Option A There was previously uncertainty about how many children he has, but reliable sources like The Guardian considered his statements in 2021 as clearing up the matter and confirming that he then had six children instead of five or six. Unless there are contemporary sources that go into detail about why the number is uncertain, we should not be speculating unnecessarily. SmartSE (talk) 11:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Guardian itself reported the number later as "at least eight" - this includes the two children by Carrie born after the article you linked to, one born and one on the way as of the making of this post. I wouldn't take the previous article as a confirmation of the number of children Johnson has, but merely as a report on the number of children Johnson admits he has. Cortador (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes but only in passing - it doesn't provide any context for why the number is uncertain. SmartSE (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of other reliable sources that cast doubt on the number being exactly six. A specific level of detail isn't a requirement for reliability. Cortador (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a WP:WEIGHT issue - if we are going to say "at least" we need to be able to explain why it is in dispute but I'm not aware of any sources post-2021 that do so. As I've already said, previously there was justification for that term as Johnson had never acknowledged the child fathered with Helen Macintyre. SmartSE (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is what WEIGHT has to say: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." "At least seven children" is a viewpoint published by reliable sources. Cortador (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Option C Otherwise we are choosing between two statements, one of which isn't completely verifiable, and the other insinuates that Johnson is not telling the truth (I realise this wouldn't exactly be an unusual state of affairs, but it's still not for us to do that); and both have sources, reliable ones. The actual paragraph on "Relationships" goes into detail on his family, do we really need to summarise it in one sentence?  I don't think we do. Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't need to make any statements on whether Johnson is telling the truth. We just need reliable sources that report one way or another. Cortador (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Or in this case, both ways... Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Are there? Right now, we have a single source just using the "six children" (Times). Even the other source (BBC News) points out that Johnson states he has (then) six children, not that it's just six. Cortador (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This might not be a bad way forward, as far as the infobox is concerned. It avoids the cutting embrace of the infobox format and allows for a potential future better resolution of the issue the RfC raised. -The Gnome (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Option A as verifiable, and then just let the prose explain the situation for more contentious details.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A as it is easily verifiable. Mischief-making editorialisation and sensationalism ("at least...", etc.) in the press is never substantiated and seems to rely on a vague statement in a court sometime in the past which holds no weight. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Option A since verifiable and not needlessly provocative. And being literal ... that is the number he "has", as is being a functional father association, and we would count ones adopted in such a count.  Others that he may have fathered but has no relationship with are not ones to list in any sense of "having".  For the question of such, just let the prose explain the situation for more contentious details in WPDUE weight and try to not to have a BLP be too tabloid.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Criminal offence?
Some sources say that Johnson's fixed penalty notice amounted to a criminal offence. Some contradict that. Our own FPN article contradicts it, quoting the law: "'penalty notice' means a notice offering the opportunity, by paying a penalty in accordance with this Chapter, to discharge any liability to be convicted of the offence to which the notice relates" (emphasis added). Other more mundane sources for it not amounting to committing a criminal offence: The Daily Telegraph "If left unpaid and if the Prime Minister loses his appeal, it can amount to a criminal offence" (this didn't happen); The Times "it is not a criminal offence unless the fine is not paid" (this didn't happen); a criminal lawyer quoted in The Guardian "they have given people criminal penalties for a series of illegal gatherings, just not the prime minister"; ITV "A fixed penalty notice is not a criminal conviction"; inews "An FPN is not technically a fine or a criminal conviction". At the very least, there is considerable doubt that he committed a criminal offence, so we shouldn't assert that in the article; the current "breached social distancing laws" is more neutral wording and not (as far as I know) contradicted by numerous high-quality sources. EddieHugh (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Your claims are not accurate. The phrase discharge any liability to be convicted of the offence indicates that an offence has been committed (because "the offence" indicates the existence of an offence, along with the concomitant liability to be discharged). The FPN offers a route to avoid a conviction, a word which was not stated in the article text. The Telegraph article does not, as you inaccurately imply, claim that Johnson was not found to have committed an offence (the statement you quote does not contradict what the FT says). Nowhere in the text did it state there was a criminal conviction. The Guardian, ITV, and inews articles all support that an offence was committed:
 * Only one source claims it is not an offence [The Times]. Given high quality news sources support its characterisation as an offence, it's appropriate to state as much. Please take care not to inadvertently misrepresent sources, like those above, here on talk. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 00:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As quoted, The Telegraph stated: "If left unpaid and if the Prime Minister loses his appeal, it can amount to a criminal offence". The fine wasn't unpaid and he didn't appeal. At the very least, that implies (looking at the logic, it does a lot more than imply) that it would not "amount to a criminal offence" if those conditions were not met. The conditions were not met. But the now re-reverted article states "he committed a criminal offence". Your Guardian quotation doesn't support that. Nor does ITV or inews ("offence" ≠ "committed a criminal offence"). EddieHugh (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems that The Times modified the article in question over time. This is the only snapshot of the full text I could find, and it didn't mention the breach not being a criminal offence at the time (April 2022). Cortador (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cambial Yellowing, your premise is false. In English law, the prerequisite to be able to say that a person has committed a criminal offence (in relation to the offences in question) is that they have been convicted of committing a criminal offence by a criminal court. Having paid an FPN, you are no longer liable to be convicted of that alleged offence. Hence if an FPN is paid, it will never be proven if a criminal offence was actually committed.
 * FPNs are a civil penalty you can choose to pay to discharge any liability to be convicted of the offence. Even if you choose not to pay an FPN you do not automatically become 'convicted'. In that case the ball goes back into the hands of the police, who then need to decide whether to forget it, or whether to assemble a case to pass onto the CPS who will then decide whether it is worthy enough to prosecute through the courts.
 * Additionally, as the threshold used to issue Covid regulation FPNs is so low (the police only have to "reasonably believe" that the specific regulation has been breached) we should not mimic the news media and editorialise our text or use loaded language to imply anything that has not been proven in a criminal court, but simply state the straight plain facts (e.g. "an FPN was issued for an alleged breach of the Covid-19 xxx regulations"). -- DeFacto (talk). 08:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cambial Yellowing, your premise is false. In English law, the prerequisite to be able to say that a person has committed a criminal offence (in relation to the offences in question) is that they have been convicted of committing a criminal offence by a criminal court. Having paid an FPN, you are no longer liable to be convicted of that alleged offence. Hence if an FPN is paid, it will never be proven if a criminal offence was actually committed.
 * FPNs are a civil penalty you can choose to pay to discharge any liability to be convicted of the offence. Even if you choose not to pay an FPN you do not automatically become 'convicted'. In that case the ball goes back into the hands of the police, who then need to decide whether to forget it, or whether to assemble a case to pass onto the CPS who will then decide whether it is worthy enough to prosecute through the courts.
 * Additionally, as the threshold used to issue Covid regulation FPNs is so low (the police only have to "reasonably believe" that the specific regulation has been breached) we should not mimic the news media and editorialise our text or use loaded language to imply anything that has not been proven in a criminal court, but simply state the straight plain facts (e.g. "an FPN was issued for an alleged breach of the Covid-19 xxx regulations"). -- DeFacto (talk). 08:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment : Political as opposed to legal The use of the term "criminal offense" by many people and lots of media typically and erroneously attributes a higher-than-appropriate level of the offense's seriousness. In the UK, there are three categories of criminal offences. These are summary offences, either way offences, and indictable only offences. (Before 1967, the distinction was, as in most western countries, between felonies, i.e. serious offences, and misdemeanours, i.e. less serious ones.)
 * Summary offenses are the most numerous and the most common offenses. Except for dangerous driving or when a fatality has occurred, all driving offences are summary offences, as are common assault and minor criminal damage. A fine imposed by the police for a summary offense determines that an offense has been committed and it can, of course, as all offences, be challenged in court.
 * Small note on the rest: Either way offenses are only tried in a magistrates' court. They're obviously more serious than the summary ones. The "either way" term denotes the fact that the magistrates' court may either decide that its sentencing powers are insufficient for the case and kick it up the Crown Court, or decide they are sufficient and proceeds, if this is not challenged by the defendant, to try the case. Finally, the most serious ones, only dealt with by the Crown Court, are the "indictable only" offenses: murder, manslaughter, robbery, rape.
 * In the case of Partygate, Boris Johnson has been issued with a police fine. He has, therefore, according to the police, committed an offense, a summary offense. The outcome of this affair depends on the time limit the person at the receiving end of the fine has to challenge the fine at court, where, if exonerated he gets rid of the record of him having committed an offense, or pays it up and his legal trouble ends although he'd have thus confirmed the commitment of an offense. The Guardian reported that Johnson was found to have committed "five serious offences," i.e. deliberately misleading the Commons when he repeatedly said that no Covid rules were broken or that he had been assured none were broken, deliberately misleading the Commons' privileges committee when he reiterated the same argument, breaching confidence by leaking part of the report, impugning the committee and thus parliamentary process, and being complicit in a campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the committee. Yet, none of them constitute as these words are typed, a legal offense, an offence tried in the courts, a criminal offense. (See Parliamentary privilege in the United Kingdom.) Members of the Commons are subject to the criminal law except in respect of words spoken or acts done in the context of a parliamentary proceeding; no MP can be, as of yet, charged in court for "misleading the Commons," to give an example. What has been committed is the offense declared through the fine imposed on Johnson by the police, as pointed out by many sources such as The Independent in their report. The political future of all this is developing and uncertain.-The Gnome (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @The Gnome, you are mistaken about the consequences of paying an FPN. It does not imply an admission of guilt.
 * Also, you do not get any appeal option. The only options you have, apart from seeking a Judicial Review, are to pay, or not pay. If you do not pay within the allowed time, it is the police who decide whether to send your case to the CPS, and it is they who decide whether it can go to court.
 * Also, this, from Legal Action Group, is an interesting read. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * DeFacto, when a UK citizen pays a police-imposed fine this means that, de facto -no pun intended- and for whatever reason, they do not contest the police summons to pay. A fine, of FPN in the jargon, is "a form of civil penalty," a "quick and easy form of punishment." The fine is always about breaches of the law, a fact explicitly demonstrated when refusing to pay the fine, in which case, the refuseniks "face prosecution in the criminal courts." Yes, "it is possible to pay a penalty without ever admitting guilt, or any formal finding of guilt," but this does not make the penalty anything less than about a breach of the law, duly remedied through punishment. All phrases inside quotations were taken from the Anthony Gold link you gave, with emphasis added.
 * I did not refer to nor implied any kind of appeal process. Forgive any unintended confusion from my part in that respect.
 * If the coronovirus-related movement restrictions imposed by law in the UK contained technical flaws or were otherwise poorly framed, as the linked Pippa Woodrow-article asserts, that is not of interest to the article. Such input would be included, in case its contents merit inclusion, in articles related to the covid pandemic. So, it's an interesting read in the general sense perhaps but not a pertinent read. Thanks anyway. -The Gnome (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a 'fine' as such, it's a civil penalty. Recipients generally received legal advice to pay FPNs, whether they agreed with it or not, because the risk to livelihood and lifestyle were indeed significant if they acquired a criminal record. So we cannot assume that all, or indeed any, of the recipients accepted that they had committed an offence. And we certainly cannot assume that all, or indeed any, of the police's "reasonable beliefs" would have translated into criminal convictions if FPNs went unpaid.
 * We should avoid speculation (or perhaps wishful thinking) and not editorialise, but stick to the incontrovertible facts (e.g. "an FPN was issued for an alleged breach of the Covid-19 xxx regulations"). -- DeFacto (talk). 14:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The claim that the prerequisite to be able to say that a person has committed a criminal offence (in relation to the offences in question) is that they have been convicted of committing a criminal offence by a criminal court is both ambiguous and wrong. Ambiguous, because the implied person made "able to say" something, for whom the real or imagined "prerequisite" is ostensibly required, is never specified. Who is it that you think requires this prerequisite? Certainly Wikipedia does not.
 * Wrong, because while more serious offences are indeed handled by a criminal court, there are a wide variety of offences for which this is not the process used, in fact and in law. This is because it serves no interests to further burden the court system with less serious criminal offences, nor to give wide and otherwise law-abiding sectors of the public a criminal record.
 * You have made arguments against the article text stating that the subject was "proven" to have committed an offence, "convicted" of an offence, or "found guilty" of an offence. No-one has proposed text that says any of these. Arguing against a position no-one has taken is not a fruitful use of the talk page. The text says that police determined that he committed a criminal offence, which is a fact. Johnson did not dispute that determination.
 * The relevant legislation is statutory instruments SI 2020/684 and SI 2020/907. As is made clear in the legislation (section 8), and in relevant scholarship, someone breaching the regulations committed an offence.
 * You argue the notion that we ought to ignore the most reliable sources available (broadsheet news organisations) and not state what they report as fact (not as editorialising). I find such arguments from editors that have been around this website for seventeen years amusing. They are not persuasive. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 14:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cambial Yellowing,
 * Q: Who is it that you think requires this prerequisite [to be able to say that a person has committed a criminal offence]? A: WP:BLPCRIME, A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law.
 * You say: it serves no interests to further burden the court system with less serious criminal offences. Exactly, and the law recognises that with FPNs, which are civil penalties, and not criminal convictions.
 * You say: The text says that police determined that he committed a criminal offence, which is a fact. Johnson did not dispute that determination. That is not fact. The only way we would have known that is if he had not paid and let it go to court, which he didn't - thus avoiding a criminal conviction. Whether he disputed that, or not, is irrelevant as it never went to court.
 * You say: ... someone breaching the regulations committed an offence. But the whole point is that we do not actually know, because it was never tested in court, whether regulations were breached. All we know is (because he was issued an FPN) that police are only saying that they "reasonably believe" an offence has been committed.
 * You say: You argue the notion that we ought to ignore the most reliable sources available (broadsheet news organisations) and not state what they report as fact (not as editorialising). No, I'm not saying that. And yes, I've been editing Wikipedia long enough to remember when WP:VER said the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia was verifiability, not truth. Thankfully that has now been changed. What we should do is (and see [[WP:NPOV#Words to watch) cut through the news media's typical editorialisation and sensationalist style, and convert it into facts.
 * -- DeFacto (talk). 16:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * BLPCRIME is about . It is not relevant. The notion the subject is not a public figure is also amusing. WP:BLPPUBLIC applies and we
 * Your claim that "police determined that he committed a criminal offence...That is not fact" is incorrect. It is a fact that the police made the determination that Johnson breached the regulations and committed a criminal offence. The police were not in the business of issuing FPN notices where they had not bothered to determine if the offence of a breach of the regulations had occurred.
 * You claim "the law recognises that with FPNs, which are civil penalties. The law does not "recognise" anything of the sort. FPNs are issued for certain criminal offences, such as speeding, as an alternative to prosecution that avoids the burden for the crown of a court case or the burden for the individual of a criminal conviction.
 * You say "the whole point is that we do not actually know. That's not "the whole point" at all. The point is, as the text says, "the police determined that he committed a criminal offence". The fact that Johnson chose not to dispute this is of course highly relevant.
 * There is no "sensationalist style" in the sources used. You appear to be using that as a euphemism for stating things that might be considered detrimental to the article subject. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 17:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cambial Yellowing,
 * No, the first sentence, the one I quoted, out of BLPCRIME applies to everyone. Even celebrities cannot be libelled. You are confusing it with the third sentence. BLPPUBLIC only authorises the addition of robustly sourced allegations and factual incidents made against public figures. In no way does it excuse false accusations such as that a crime was committed when the only evidence we have, an FPN, shows otherwise.
 * No, the police only had to reasonably believe it, so not necessarily determine it.
 * No, the coronavirus FPNs are civil penalties. See Anthony Gold (again) - FPNs are a form of civil penalty, .... They are not a criminal conviction, and do not result in a criminal record.
 * No, the police were only required to "reasonably believe", so not to determine, that a regulation was breached. Accepting an FPN is not an acceptance of guilt - that's how FPNs work. See Anthony Gold agaion, It is possible to pay a penalty without ever admitting guilt, or any formal finding of guilt.
 * We can see that their choice of language has led readers to believe things about receiving an FPN that are simply not true. I call it a senationalist style because the articles are (IMHO) deliberately crafted to present information in a way that is shocking or exciting rather than serious and strictly factual.
 * I think we've been around the loop more than once on most of these now, and you haven't managed to successfully challenge any of my points. So, I'll bow out of this sub-thread with you now, unless you bring compelling new evidence to the discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree, insofar as none of your points have any merit in the first place.
 * the first sentence, the one I quoted, out of BLPCRIME applies to everyone - the first sentence also has nothing whatsoever to say about content policy. Even celebrities cannot be libelled - yes - and as we are saying what is reported by highly reliable news organisations, there is no libel.
 * reasonably believe; "signalled police felt"; "determined"; "found" - tomato, tomato. We could follow the source exactly and use "found".
 * They are not a criminal conviction, and do not result in a criminal record - Repeatedly trying to rebut against a position no-one has argued is a waste of time. Anthony Gold's blog is not a reliable source. An academic reference work is a reliable source. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 19:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Almost. Please look at Ask the Police under "Q213: What will happen if I don't pay the fine on a fixed penalty notice?", which says:
 * "There are two ways of failing to pay a fine on a fixed penalty notice:
 * "1. You reject the fixed penalty notice from the start. You will receive a summons to go to court. You can either then plead guilty by letter or elect to go to court. If found guilty at court you may be given a slightly larger fine and you will have to pay the court costs (approximately £40).
 * "2. If you accept the penalty notice but then fail to pay within 28 days, the fine is registered with the court and is automatically increased by 50%. It is then for the court to enforce the fine and they do have the option of issuing a warrant for your arrest if you fail to respond."
 * Note it says You will receive a summons to go to court. 16:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC) 86.187.173.73 (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's "Written evidence from Daniel Greenberg CB, Counsel for Domestic Legislation at House of Commons": "it is questionable whether most members of the public understand the distinction between a civil penalty and a criminal penalty"; he refers to covid fines as civil penalties. This gives us the added complication of 'penalties'. So, it's complicated... as I initially stated, there's enough uncertainty here to make it wise to avoid the bald statement "he committed a criminal offence." EddieHugh (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with your last sentence, and the article text does not use that statement. It closely follows the FT, which also does not make that statement, but rather says "found to have committed". It's better we avoid the passive voice, and specify who the "finder" was - in this case, the metropolitan police. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 19:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you know that that was not the intent of my last sentence. We shouldn't ignore all of the evidence that this is more complicated than what is currently in the article. (It shouldn't be in the article, because it was added recently, has been challenged, and is under active discussion.) EddieHugh (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How have I misinterpreted your last sentence? I took it to mean - not "we shouldn't use this exact phrase" - but rather "we shouldn't state 'he committed a criminal offence' in Wikivoice". The text doesn't do so, it makes a statement about the finding by the metropolitan police. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 19:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It meant we shouldn't have the "he committed a criminal offence" part of that sentence. EddieHugh (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. But that is the nature of the finding by the police, as is reported in reliable sources. Issues around penalties - a separate, later question about how the liability for offence is discharged - do not complicate that fact. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 20:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources report that Johnson committed a criminal offence. The article should therefore state that Johnson committed a criminal offence. Everything else proposed here in discussion about English law etc. is just proposing we replace information from reliable sources with WP:OR. Cortador (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We have sources saying he did and sources saying he didn't. The current wording leads readers in a particular (wrong) direction, because "committed a criminal offence" is routinely associated by the lay-person with 'is a criminal', 'has a criminal record', etc. Anyway, the article's in another period of bashing its subject, so, like DeFacto, above, I'll depart this thread. EddieHugh (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We have a single source (The Times) that stated Johnson did not commit a criminal offence, and the only full text of that article we have (which I linked to above) doesn't even say that. You are misrepresenting the sources. Cortador (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah... no. EddieHugh (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this insightful comment that addresses the issues I have brought up. Cortador (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You didn't raise anything that hadn't already been discussed. EddieHugh (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You claimed this was a both sides issue, whereas in reality we have plenty of sources for one case, and a single - at times altered - source for the other. Cortador (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You are wrong on the sources (again); see above (again). But I'm not going to repeat it (again) if you respond (again) with something that's already been addressed. EddieHugh (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I refer you to my reply above. Cortador (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In its broadest definition, a criminal offence is any violation of public laws, including parking offences. This is in contrast to a tort, which is a civil wrong that violates the rights of another individual. In common speech, it refers to a serious violation of public laws.
 * Due to the ambiguity of the term, it's best avoided.
 * TFD (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources use this term, therefore this article should use this term. Cortador (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you point to a policy or guideline that supports your position? TFD (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Verifiability Cortador (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you point to the wording in Verifiability that says this article should use the exact term reported in reliable sources? I note that V says "Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV)." There are numerous sections of NPOV related to use of language in articles. TFD (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll do so once you tell where I used the phrase "exact term". Cortador (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * See the heading at the top of this discussion thread. (Criminal offence?) That's the term under discussion. TFD (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess you can't then, Cortador (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You wrote, "this article should use this term." [07:51, 28 June 2023] Can you explain how "this term" and "exact term" differ in meaning? TFD (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. One of them is that term exactly, and the other that term generally. I don't know what else you expect here. Cortador (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't understand what your point is regarding the question whether the article should say Johnson committed a criminal offence. TFD (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't help you then. Cortador (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)