Talk:Boris Johnson/Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2019
In section titled: Personal life add new text re: Carrie Symonds,

In early 2019 Johnson was rumoured to be considering marrying Carrie Symonds, having moved in with her. In June 2019, during the leadership concert, reports arose of police being called to their joint flat, following reports of a domestic disturbance. Jdawinslow (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC) The reports of a police visit were subsequently confirmed by the London Metropolitan Police.
 * The likelihood of the first now seems somewhat undermined by the second? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This clearly violates WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP. From the police, "There were no offences or concerns apparent to the officers and there was no cause for police action."   w umbolo   ^^^  14:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

In notice that the list of criticisms of Boris Johnson has a glaring omission that distorts the public record. Bors Johnson is an acknoledged philanderer. I cite this linked artcle from the London Times ("The Times"): https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-leadership-race-bust-up-with-carrie-symonds-raises-new-doubts-over-boris-johnson-s-fitness-to-lead-7n060x53t written by Oliver Wright, Policy Editor publshed June 22 2019, 12:00am, in The Times and online at www.thetimes.co.uk

Established fact that he does not refute. He is "A repeated philanderer". Can I get a concensus to edit this before this misleading omisson influences current political debate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RI Carling (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's better to provide the reader with information than to apply a judgemental label, so you probably won't get a consensus for that. And I doubt that Wikipedia has much influence on political debate; it's mostly the other way round. EddieHugh (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Is Boris really that filthy? You might have better luck adding a note about his Toyota Previa GX Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested addition to "In popular culture" section
Please add the following final sentence:

He also appears (in his role as Foreign Secretary) in the final chapter of J. D. Clockman's satirical novel, Return to Odium (London: Jetstone, 2018).

Source: see https://www.amazon.com/Return-Odium-J-D-Clockman/dp/1910858099 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:3D56:5B00:E196:1727:48FA:9C24 (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see any evidence of notability for that novel, or its author. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2019
==Personal life== :

FROM: He has stated that he has "often smoked cannabis", and in 2012 said he was in favour of legalising medicinal cannabis to alleviate severe and chronic pain.

TO: He has stated that he has "often smoked cannabis". In 2012, he said he was in favour of legalising medicinal cannabis to alleviate severe and chronic pain.

(Recreational and therapeutic drug use are two quite distinct topics, and should definitely not be "synthed" in a single sentence, especially given the separate sourcing.)

ADDING: I posted this edit request in the belief (at the time) that it was a clearcut question of presentation, rather than a content issue. On reflection though, it occurs to me that the second concept [...and in 2012 said he was in favour of legalising medicinal cannabis to alleviate severe and chronic pain] should really be moved somewhere else on the page, given that it regards policy not his ==Personal life== (a dimension which is not even mentioned in the cited source ).

86.172.165.142 (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No objections. Seems quite sensible. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that Martinevans123 (and I apologise for perhaps making a technically inappropriate edit request :). While my request was merely to honour Wikipedia's carefully developed editorial policies and guidelines which effectively defend against the POV implications of this kind of implied SYNTH and inappropriate attribution of a political policy to ==Personal life==, maybe it would be helpful to point out – via the WHO's official recognition of the potential medical benefits – the very real relevance of the underlying issue. I can understand regular editors of this semi-protected BLP focusing on current political and media events, but I do hope that an experienced editor here may find the time to undo the implied SYNTH and relocate the political opinion (actually sourced from 2008  not "2012", as currently written) to somewhere more appropriate on the page (perhaps under #Policies?). 86.172.165.142 (talk) 12:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ Alduin2000 (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Garden bridge
I'm surprised to see no mention at all of the garden bridge in this article, given that it was one of the most controversial aspects of his time as Mayor of London. I'm very much not neutral regarding Boris Johnson or the garden bridge, so it would be inappropriate for me to add mention of it to the article. There's no immediately obvious discussion of this in the talk page archives. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Good point. It's coming up a fair bit in the leadership debate so is definitely DUE. This piece in the FT is probably a good source to cover his role in it. SmartSE (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * More coverage in The Guardian this week:, . – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Anna Fazackerley
No mention of Johnson's scandalous relationship with the journalist Anna Fazackerley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:4A07:6C00:E81D:7D76:6DAE:5CC (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not that keen on scandal. But you'd need to present some sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It is mentioned in Boris_Johnson, but should probbaly be moved to personal life. SmartSE (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Infobox minister vs office holder
I've noticed there's a different style of infobox here than for instance for Theresa May, leading to some inconsistent wording. E.g. 'Preceded by' vs 'Succeeding'. Is this something that should be changed, it looks like the minister infobox is obsolete. Farleysmaster (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Infobox minister and Infobox officeholder are the same template (one redirects to the other). It currently says 'Succeeding' for this page because he has not yet take office. As soon as he does, the 'Succeeding' field will be replaced by the 'Preceded by' field. Hope this helps. --Philip Stevens (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I thought that might be it. I just noticed the language wasn't exactly reciprocal on the Theresa May page, but it'll all be sorted tomorrow, I'm sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farleysmaster (talk • contribs) 13:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2019
Boris Johnson is now the Prime Minister, as of July 24, 2019. Please edit the article to reflect this. Thank you. 2601:547:A00:ADC4:C92E:61ED:5089:88D9 (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Boris isn't PM until he meets the queen in a few hours. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

First 100 days
Would it not make sense to wait and see if he makes it that far first? Stub Mandrel (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, this does seem to be an Americanism that has become part of our political commentary. No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Background
It says he was born to 'wealthy, upper-middle class parents'. His father was a bureaucrat and he was only able to go to private school on a scholarship. That's hardly 'wealthy'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB60:1011:2006:B438:9BC6:5783:4051 (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * His Eton scholarship was awarded primarily on academic grounds, may have been accompanied by a fee waiver of just 10%, and he had already atttended other private schools. There is no basis for assuming "only". Wikiain (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

View on President Trump
As it is relevant to Mr Johnson's tenure as London Mayor and to his future relationship with POTUS, it might be worth including in this article the time Mr Johnson expressed his opinion of Mr Trump in a 2015 TV interview for ITN, in which he opines that Trump is "quite clearly out of his mind" and "unfit for the office of President of the United States". I am sure a dedicated editor will find appropriate space for this. Cnbrb (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it would need to be contrasted with more up-to-date quotes/opinions... Farleysmaster (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2019
Primary image should be changed to Johnson's official portrait. It's more recent, of higher quality, and is consistent with the previous two PMs. It's also available for use. The cropped version should be used to avoid having to change its format to landscape. SnoopingAsUsual (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree and I have added a version File:Boris Johnson MP.jpg, though the version on the PM's website is from 2016. I expect that image to change to his official PM portrait once he takes it. Corky  18:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

"Elected" Prime Minister?
The, presumably new, second sentence of this article says: "He is the first elected British Prime Minister born outside of the British Isles since Andrew Bonar Law who served from 1922 to 1923."

I quibble with this on two points: one, he wasn't really elected Prime Minister. He was chosen by the Conservative Party to succeed Theresa May. In this country, we don't elect our Prime Ministers anyway, but if the colloquialism can be applied, then he's really no more an "elected Prime Minister" than Gordon Brown was (or indeed Theresa May before 2017.)

Secondly, why is this the second sentence of the article? It's a pretty minor piece of trivia that doesn't really advance one's understanding of Boris Johnson all that much. Stick it at the end of the paragraph and bin the reference to "elected". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.82 (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I note someone had already changed it to say "unelected", which just goes to show the can of worms. So I've removed the sentence. Mainly I fully agree it shouldn't be the second sentence. It is also unreferenced, and being in the lede of article, which is meant to be a summary, it should also have been mentioned elsewhere. I expect our coverage of his prime ministership will expand considerably at some point, so the information will probably find its way back into one of our articles in due course and a more appropriate context. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He is effectively elected by his party, but as that's the case for all modern Prime Ministers, it's not really an adjective that needs to be there. Farleysmaster (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a strange reading of "democracy" when a country's leader can be elected by just "0.13 per cent of the population". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * MPs are elected, parties choose their leader. I don't believe having an executive president would be more (or necessarily less) democratic.Farleysmaster (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In the UK, normally the entire electorate can vote for a party in order to get a certain leader. Whether that's truly democratic, or just misguided, is another question of course. Scottish voters seem to be particularly aggrieved this time round. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * People only really started saying that when SWP and Left Unity people and ex-members of 'Respect' managed to sneak through the name of one of Press TV's correspondents (for £20,000, I believe?) onto the 2015 Labour Party (UK) leadership election's ballot papers... in almost 20 years, I have never heard of folk who boasted or asserted on radio/TV that they voted or would vote Labour/Conservative just in order to get Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or David Cameron as PM. The Rt Hon member for Islington North, in one of his video supposedly speaking out against Antisemitism, by saying Not in my name, he clearly addressed a certain kind of his own personal supporters within the Labour Party who put their loyalty to 'LOTO' above and beyond their loyalty to the Labour Party. #Notacult 194.207.146.167 (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say that technically, no Prime Minister is elected by the people: we vote for MPs who pick party leaders to be Prime Ministers. But in common parlance one might say that Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair were "elected" in the sense that they first came to power by winning a general election. Boris Johnson and Gordon Brown were not elected Prime Minister in this sense. Since it will just lead to an edit/pedantry war, I suggest sticking to "became Prime Minister" or equivalent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.82 (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * As I see it, the usual pattern at UK General Elections is that the party elects a leader well in advance and it is that leader who then presents the party's manifesto to the electorate. Yes, the voter can choose only between candidates in their own constituency. But the voter may not care who their candidate is, voting purely for a particular party and thus for a given leader, who will usually become Prime Minister (if the party wins and the leader can form a government). They may still vote for a given party in spite of the leader. Blind party loyalty has recently become reduced eroded in the UK, of course, primarily because of the divisive nature of Brexit. Having a Prime Minister who hardly anyone has directly voted to elect tends to further erode faith in the parliamentary system. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I quite agree with the OP about "first (elected) British Prime Minister born outside of the British Isles since Andrew Bonar Law" being somewhat arcane and trivial. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

de Pfeffel
The article mentions that 'de Pfeffel' is part of Johnson's name. However, it does not explain at all whether it is indeed usually dropped (obviously it is), why (by choice or custom?), whether formal documents still carry it, and how he got the double name (does his whole family have it? Is it some kind of honorific?) Could anyone help expand? effeietsanders 23:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (Note: name etymology is currently being discussed also at Talk:Isambard Brunel. Not that I am suggesting these two individuals can be compared). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is his choice how he presents himself and he calls himself Boris Johnson instead Alexander de Pfeffel, for obvious reasons, though both are equally factually accurate.Carewolf (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If anyone does want to add an explanation of "de Pfeffel" it seems the relevant info is at his dad's page. It comes from Boris's paternal grandma's family. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 23:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

"good grasp of ... Latin" ?
Article states that Johnson has "good grasp of ... Latin"

The link to the archived Economist article of 10 Nov 2012 describes him as "latin-loving" but has no evidence of his fluency. Consider revising this or finding better evidence. He is known to use Latin from time to time, as a rhetorical flourish, perhaps, but that's not evidence of having "a good grasp".

Rob Burbidge (talk)
 * I replaced it with one of the various sources that explicitly say he is fluent in Latin. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 12:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Minister for the Union
Wondering whether the Minister for the Union position that Johnson has created for himself be added to Johnson's infobox, given he has confirmed it is an official title. Andysmith248 (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't personally really mind either way, though I would point out that Nick Clegg's page doesn't have his analogous "Minister for Constitutional and Political Reform" position in his infobox and if it's effectively just a sinecure extension of the PM's title then it might be superfluous. I did add Minister for Union to the succession boxes here earlier though. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 15:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He is also First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service. All of these are subsidiary positions of the PM and I don't believe they need to be listed in the infobox. In the case of "Minister for the Union" it's only a gesture, not a serious politician office. --Hazhk (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Boris Johnson as PM can and is perfectly entitled to by the exercise of the royal prerogative (he, as PM, in exercise of the RP in the name of the Queen [as if the Queen herself were] acting on the advice of her Ministers) create news 'Offices of State'. However, a search of this hits a blank , so perhaps best just 'put this on hold' for now. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing blocked
It is truly a shame that under the cloak of "consensus" censorship appears alive and well on this medium. For what it is worth, as an example of a reversion, nobody graduates from an Oxford college, not even Balliol. People graduate from the university. O tempora, o mores, we are descended to rank mediocrity and error. --Po Mieczu (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Infobox merely states his alma mater, and the University of Oxford is anyway clearly a collegiate university after all... and as for the page protection, these ...

• 13:39, 24 March 2015 Ged UK changed protection level for Boris Johnson ‎‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite)‎[move=sysop] (indefinite) (Persistent vandalism) • 14:57, 6 October 2014 Alexf changed visibility of a revision on page Boris Johnson: content hidden (RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material) • 15:40, 23 September 2013 Mark Arsten changed protection level for Boris Johnson ‎‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 15:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC))‎[move=sysop] (indefinite) (Persistent vandalism) • 14:00, 18 September 2012 Edgar181 changed visibility of a revision on page Boris Johnson: content hidden (RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material) • 18:33, 15 October 2011 January changed visibility of a revision on page Boris Johnson: content hidden (RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material) • 14:24, 23 November 2010 Tnxman307 protected Boris Johnson ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 14:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite) (Excessive vandalism)

194.207.146.167 (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

What is his religion.
He likes to make it known publicly that he's got Muslim, Jewish and Christian ancestry but he always suppresses what religion he follows. HardeeHar (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * And these 194.207.146.167 (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps he doesnt think it is important so if it is not widely reported then we should ignore it as well. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The "impending triumph of the Trump-lite Johnson" was recently rather savagely attacked by Anglican George Pitcher here. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He has said "I suppose my own faith is a bit like trying to get Virgin Radio when you're driving through the Chilterns; it sort of comes and goes.". See Who would Jesus vote for?, The Guardian, 3 times Boris Johnson has spoken to Premier about faith, Premier Christian Radio. Additionally, he has noted that he is not a "serious practicing Christian" even though he "thinks about religion a lot". Boris Johnson: I am not a serious practicing Christian, The Telegraph.  There's probably enough mainstream coverage of Boris Johnson's religion for a one-liner somewhere in the article. Greenshed (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ One sentence added to Personal life section. Greenshed (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Sacked
Perhaps "sacked" should be replaced with "dismissed" to refer to forced expulsion from a job so that American readers might better understand, as not everyone is familiar with British vernacular. This is a minor edit.

PiPhiTau PiPhiTau (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * We do have on this article, so that might mitigate slightly. But yes, it is colloquial. I see there are 4 instances. Do US readers really have a problem with this word? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I actually read the article yesterday and "sacked" stuck out like a sore thumb. Glad to see I wasn't the only one. "Sacked" certainly has an informal connotation to it in AmEng, so much so that I would not expect to see it on Wikipedia. I assumed it must have been a BrEng thing. TarkusAB talk / contrib 21:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I wouln't have even known the meaning of sacked if I didn't watch Downton Abbey, its something that not many Americans are familiar with, and it draws attention to it as if it were highlighted. Not a good thing on a post about a Prime Minister and a leader on the international stage. PiPhiTau (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Although colloquial British English, it's the sort of word that's often used by political commentators of all varieties, including the BBC. If it causes an issue to readers who use other varieties of English, however, I don't see why all instances couldn't be changed to "dismissed" or even "fired". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC) p.s. I'll carefully avoid suggesting that some members of Johnson's cabinet may actually think they are in Downton.
 * Agreed, if "sacked" is a problem for American readers then it's perfectly fine to change it to some other word that's used in BrE (though not required). —Nizolan (talk · c.) 23:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done by yesterday; I also changed one other that had slipped through. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 10:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Punctuation
U.S. should be changed to US throughout.108.6.253.239 (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Y Done per MOS:US. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 01:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice work! Now, what about the number of children, currently at the top of the page? 108.6.253.239 (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like there's any consensus on that point at the moment. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 13:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? Please take another look. Is there consensus to present incorrect info based on a poor source, on a high profile BLP? 108.6.253.239 (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've read it (again) and I see the problem but I'm afraid I still don't see any consensus for what, specifically, to write. Per WP:Edit requests the best thing to do would be to write a specific proposal for what should be in the article and where, which can then be discussed. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 16:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Violation of NPOV in lede
The end of the first paragraph is a clear violation of WP:NPOV

"Johnson identifies as a one-nation conservative and has been associated with both economically and socially liberal policies."

No citation is offered for any of the statements made. If, indeed, he has identified with One-Nation Toryism, then that should be simple to scare up a reference or two.

Likewise, there is no citation offered for either of the statements that he is associated with economic liberalism or social liberalism. Even if some citation were offered, these are clearly subjective matters, and not deserving of statement in the lede of an article.

If these statements cannot be supported by factual statements, then they should be removed. In the latter cases, even if supported, they should be removed.

Khavakoz (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi statements in the lede don't affirmatively need to be cited if they are explained later in the article (see MOS:LEADCITE). In this case you'll find all the material you've mentioned explained with plenty of references at Boris Johnson. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 19:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've read that, there's nothing there which states that he is "associated with both economically and socially liberal policies". There's one quote, from a friend of his Andrew Grimson, but that clearly fails sourcing requirements, and doesn't state anything about any liberal policy that Johnson is "associated with".
 * Those statements should be removed from the lede, as they are clearly a violation of WP:NPOV and are more akin to propaganda Khavakoz (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I count five sources listed in the first paragraph of that section describing him as associated with economic and social liberalism, including the fairly eminent political scientist Tony Travers (for social liberalism), so I think you might need to look more carefully at the section. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 19:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * None of those references provide a single link to any specific policies to which Johnson is associated.
 * The Economist article is opinion, not news, has no byline and is from a part of the Magazine commonly referred to as the Colour Pieces. The sole mention of Johnson in the article is: "The chaotic, colourful mayor of London, a rare politician who transcends his Tory identity by melding social and economic liberalism" -- No support for any such social or economic liberal positions are provided.
 * The Guardian piece is an opinion piece by Dave Hill, not a news piece. Again, the article does not give specific policies which are claimed to be liberal, and spends much of its length deriding Identity Politics.
 * The Tony Tavers comments to which you ascribe such weight were made on a Channel 4 game show. Hardly the peak of Political Theorising.
 * The fact remains that these statements in the lede are a violation of WP:NPOV Khavakoz (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * British politics might be a circus but calling an article on Channel 4 News a game show seems a bit much! Anyway, they don't need to give specific examples of these policies. If reliable sources generally state something, then we report it, regardless of what problems you might have with their conclusions personally. Of course you are welcome to add statements from other, contradictory reliable sources if such are available (as indeed they probably are). —Nizolan (talk · c.) 19:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Mr Johnson does not speak fluent French and Italian. However, this is claimed by the article.
He speaks broken Italian. This can be seen by his attempt to reply in Italian to a question put to him by an MP in the commons. Refer to the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOvzKroe-4Q. His use of Italian is at best grammatically incorrect and at worst caricatural. This is confirmed by the following Italian media article: http://www.askanews.it/esteri/2016/10/19/boris-johnson-parla-italiano-in-parlamento-ma-%C3%A8-un-mezzo-disastro-pn_20161019_00076/

He speaks French at an intermediate level. This is evidenced by the following interview where he struggles to find the French word for sewer and, later on, failing to find the adequate French expression, switches to English midway through a sentence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEGtpSvGXEA
 * Sank you zo mursh - ees French eet eez totallee effluent! Wikiain (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

In the following video Johnson moreover fails to find the correct French translation for the expression 'to have one's cake and eat it too' which is 'vouloir le beurre et l'argent du beurre'. http://www.ladbible.com/news/politics-clip-showing-boris-johnson-speaking-french-goes-viral-20181129 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groaci (talk • contribs) 16:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this is basically original research and not a good set of sources overall for making a positive claim in the article, albeit the Italian news source seems OK for that incident. We could maybe just remove the "fluent" claim and say that he speaks French and Italian without making a judgement on his current level of fluency. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 16:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. Removed claims of fluency - the videos are proof positive (and my French is somewhat better than his).  Correspondingly, removed "good" from "grasp" of German etc. Wikiain (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I did tweak it again to just a straightforward list since "have a grasp of" sounds a bit odd in this context/might be taken as implying he's bad at them (which he may well be but OR/RS etc). —Nizolan (talk · c.) 02:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * D'accord, mais j'ai tweaked again, to "has a knowledge of". The Commons video - where he slips among Italian, French and English - indicates that his Italian might not go much beyond tutti frutti (I can't open the Italian media link).  Maybe he speaks Latin???  But you're right:  OR/RS etc and some printed sources have been cited. You seem well qualified to monitor his performances and I'll be happy to rely upon your keeping an ear on them. Wikiain (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Works for me! —Nizolan (talk · c.) 02:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see it now. They report that the Telegraph—which would be the Daily Telegraph (London)—hears him saying "Vabbè!… Tutti li itali son benevenuti alla Londra!”, where "li itali" and "la Londra" are wrong. I hear "Vabbè!… Tutti l'itali sono benevluti alla Lon ..." Perhaps he meant "benevolente" (benevolent).  The Daily Telegraph was apparently more interested in where he got the idea that Italians immigrate only to London. Wikiain (talk) 02:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I suspect he may actually think in Latin. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Having done Classics at Oxford, it's possible—or maybe your inference is less respectable. Wikiain (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Less respectable inference? Whatever can you mean? I'm sure Boris can Paso Doble with the best. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Nottingham University or the University of Nottingham?
Consider changing Nottingham University to University of Nottingham, and Oxford University to University of Oxford where mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.142.218 (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Alduin2000 (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

How many children does Boris Johnson have - some mention of 6 or 7 children?
How many children does Boris Johnson have - some mention of 6 or 7 children?

Can someone explain this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.240.58.228 (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. It’s rather a basic thing not to be clear on in the article. 90.253.12.154 (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * He won't say. He has four legitimate children, a known illegitimate child (Stephanie) born in 2009, and then, according to the linked article, "a handful of grown up children in their twenties of whom friends say now go about their lives with cover stories about the identity of their own dad." Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Then the article should mention this. That looks like a good source and it's an important detail. --90.255.142.99 (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, now I'm not sure any more. I couldn't find any other sources for this claim, and the author of that piece, Tom Peck, is a sketch writer; or, as he says - in a tweet publicizing that very same article - "I am not a proper journalist, I just do the lols." A better source would be good. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The Economist reckons the number is unknown, which in itself is unusual and deserves to be recorded as it has become an issue in his leadership campaign. --90.255.142.99 (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The Independent article is a sketch, so shouldn't be used as a source. I read it as the "handful of grown up children" were the four children he has with Wheeler, who aren't otherwise mentioned. --hippo43 (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * And didn't he try to sue The Guardian to stop them revealing one of them? What did you think of the Economist piece as a source? --90.255.142.99 (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * There's no way that "handful of grown up children" is a reference to his legitimate children - first because (snark aside) it wouldn't make sense for them to need a cover story about their father, second because the article doesn't make sense if it only discusses known children. However, it's true that there's no definitive statement anywhere about the number of children he has. In fact, according to journalist Mark Steyn, who used to work for Johnson at The Spectator, Johnson himself "genuinely cannot answer the question how many children he has". I don't know what an ideal source for this is, though. Maybe that Economist article - I'm not subscribed, so I can't read it. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * What makes metro.co.uk a good source for him having five children? And the article even says the real number could be six. --69.120.40.196 (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I propose changing his number of children to "unknown" with a sentence to be decided about it under Personal life. 69.120.40.196 (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that "BJ" has finally become World King I feel, in some deeply democratic way, that we are really all his children, don't you? But failing that, I'd certainly go with Mark Steyn on this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree this edit should be made. 108.6.253.239 (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe no one knows how many children he has, maybe he doesn't know about some of them? Lord of the Isles (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Please reopen edit request, if needed, when you have a source and a proposed change. --Trialpears (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Carrie Symonds
Carrie (Caroline) Symonds was involved with Boris Johnson at the time of his divorce, is now his girlfriend (young enough to be his daughter), responsible for his re-styling (weight, haircut, less public bumptiousness - how long will these last?), his frequent consort.

Where is this information in the article? Where is the article about her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.143.119 (talk) 08:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * She is mentioned in the article as his current girlfriend anything else is really for the tabloids and not particularly encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

'Alleged misconduct in public office'
(1) There is no such a thing as a 'private prosecutor' in the legal system and the courts of England and Wales. Marcus Ball was an applicant ((making an application) to prosecute Boris Johnson), not a prosecutor, before Westminster Magistrates' Court. Marcus Ball calls himself a 'prosecutor', but that doesn't make him one. (2) It gives undue length covering to the words of the determination and decision of the District Judge, when the High Court has subsequently ruled that the (whole) decision was unlawful (illegal) ("The error of law about which complaint is made was bound (as we find, see below) to have led the DJ to act in excess of jurisdiction and unlawfully by deciding to issue a summons where the ingredients of the offence were not made out and which was outside the scope of the offence." (Para[graph] 17)). (3) The correct date that the case got thrown out is July 3 (judgment date), not June 7 (hearing date). 

(4) Since the High Court ruled that the 'allegation' made by Marcus Ball had no basis in law, I would suggest the title of this subparagraph be changed from 'Alleged misconduct in public office' to something more neutral or toned-down, such as 'Private prosecution attempt against Boris Johnson'. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC) Marcus Ball, a private prosecutor (Marcus Ball calls himself a 'private prosecutor') +[a 29-year-old private individual citizen], +[reportedly] crowdfunded more than £200,000 from nearly 6,000 supporters +[with a view] to [launch a private criminal prosecution against] prosecute Johnson on three counts for the criminal offence of +[misconduct in public office]. +[Ball claimed that] Johnson was alleged to have +["]abused the public's trust during the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum by lying about the UK's spending on European Union membership in his public offices as a Member of Parliament and as Mayor of London +["]. On 23 February 29 May 2019, the prosecution +[Ball's application to prosecute was initially accepted by] laid an information of the case at +[a District Judge at] Westminster Magistrates' Court and filed an application for a +[, and she issued] summons against Johnson +[requiring Johnson to appear in the court]. The case +[prosecution] was +[however stayed (suspended) by the High Court of England and Wales on Johnson's appeal on 7 June, ] and was +[formally] dismissed +[ quashed as vexatious] by the High Court on 7 June 3 July. (The correct date was 3 July.) Most of the cited sources automatically became out-of-date when the High Court stayed 'the case' on 7 June and quashed it on 3 July. The 3 July judgment of the High Court clearly ruled and states that the allegations made by Ball, as far as the points of law were concerned, were false (they did not address (go into the whole question as to) whether Boris Johnson did lie or not, because Johnson was not on (criminal) trial in the (Administrative) Court (a civil court), as far as they (the two Justices of the High Court) were concerned; the judgment was based upon giving Marcus Ball the benefit of the doubt, 'for the sake of the argument, let us presume that Boris Johnson die lie')). Anyway. there was (is) no 'case' (no case in law and (therefore) no [prosecution] case [for Boris Johnson] to answer [in [a criminal trial in a criminal] court], as the High Court has ruled), and that that very word should be taken out and replaced with others more accurate and appropriate. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * These all seem to be perfectly valid points, although the last one is perhaps more debatable. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really, according to the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, sitting as the Administrative Court. The High Court's (Admin) judgment rubbished this argument, ruling that Marcus Ball essentially dreamt up his own personal 'legal definition' of Misconduct, and the District Judge herself acting outside (i.e., broke) the law by inexplicably agreeing to this and going along with it. ("The error of law about which complaint is made was bound (as we find, see below) to have led the DJ to act in excess of jurisdiction and unlawfully by deciding to issue a summons where the ingredients of the offence were not made out and which was outside the scope of the offence ." (Para[graph] 17)) 194.207.146.167 (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2019 (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. Melmann (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * = = = = Alleged misconduct in public office +[Private prosecution attempt against Johnson] = = = =


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 18:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Ancestry
Although his great-great-great-grandmother died in Basel, shouldn't it be called "of German descent" instead of "of Swiss descent"? http://www.bbc.co.uk/whodoyouthinkyouare/new-stories/boris-johnson/how-we-did-it_2.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.91.228.228 (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: For a related discussion brought in front of a larger context about the available Template:Ahnentafel possibly applicable for this article, please see Template_talk:Ahnentafel. PPEMES (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Steve Pieczenik interesting take on Boris Johnson as well as his ancestry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuXwyO7XmNU (Pieczenik was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance and James Baker. His expertise includes foreign policy, international crisis management and psychological warfare. He served the presidential administrations of Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush in the capacity of deputy assistant secretary) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.149.160 (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Wealthy family?
Should the article mention that Johnson was born into a "wealthy" family or, at least, into an "upper middle class" family? I'm sure suitable sources could be easily found. If so, should this be reflected in the lead section? The article for David Cameron might be a useful one for comparison. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you can find sources which say this, then go for it! Currently there aren't any such sources in the article though. Bellowhead678 (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The New York Times, here says: "Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson was born in New York in 1964, the eldest child of a close-knit, extroverted and fiercely competitive upper middle-class British family."? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's more mentions of Johnson coming from a rich family in some other sources as well:  . Also, this is probably a stretch, but according to Who Do You Think You Are?, his great-great-grandfather was "a wealthy merchant" in Constantinople. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

NPOV in lead section
A note for the 4th paragraph in the lead section states: DO NOT REMOVE THIS LONGSTANDING PARAGRAPH WITHOUT GAINING CONSENSUS ON TALK PAGE; THE INFORMATION IT CONTAINS IS FULLY SOURCED IN ARTICLE BODY.

Content, however, has recently been introduced from mobile edits in the last couple of days to the longstanding paragraph to add further negative criticism of Johnson (by his critics) above the previous longstanding consensus.

The previous longstanding wording was: "He has been criticised by figures on both the left and the right for using racist and homophobic language, as well as alleged elitism, cronyism, dishonesty, and laziness."

This was recently changed to "He has been criticised by figures on both the left and the right for using racist and homophobic language, as well as alleged elitism, cronyism, dishonesty and lying, incompetence and laziness. "

The new wording might be sourced, but in my view this extra layer of criticism is not needed. The previous wording is sufficient, in my view, to indicate he has been criticised by both the left and the right. "Dishonesty" in my view is sufficient, without also stating "lying" in addition to dishonesty. If the lead section starts including every time somebody uses a negative description of Johnson then firstly the lead gets bulky and secondly the lead starts to stray too much into negativity.

If Labour MPs also criticise Johnson for ineptness and bungling, do we include that as well in the lead, or simply give a summary of the criticism. A summary is better, more concise and has a more neutral tone.

Guidelines at WP:LEAD state that the lead should only be a summary of its most important contents and it is not a news-style lead. The previous longstanding consensus was a summary. The additional negative criticism is not needed in my view and so therefore I've today restored the longstanding consensus for the sentence. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree - for one thing, a politician getting criticised for incompetence is hardly even notable. Wikiain (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

From where the lead starts Born in New York City, down to the first section appears to be a seperate article entirely, would be if this was scrapped or incorporated into the sections of the article, otherwise the whole article is just going to get increasingly out of control. Lord of the Isles (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The current version seems adequate enough in portraying the kind of criticism that he received over the years. If we are in the business of quoting every negative adjective that was publicly said about to Boris we might as well just redirect the whole page to thesaurus.com and call it a day. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

relatives missing
Why are his father's other children NOT mentioned in this article, but are in his father's article under relatives. They are Boris's siblings Maximilian for example: https://www.scmp.com/business/banking-finance/article/3022223/boris-johnsons-brother-hong-kong-backs-his-brexit-strategy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Award winning poetry - mention needed
He won at least one award for distinguished poets.

Here is the captivating urbane poem, about Mr Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (!):

“There was a young fellow from Ankara, Who was a terrific wankerer. Till he sowed his wild oats, With the help of a goat, But he didn’t even stop to thankera.”

that brought him such plaudits from fellow cognoscenti.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/19/boris-johnson-wins-most-offensive-erdogan-poem-competition

-> Let us thus mention his literary accomplishments and the postliminary laurels attained, as well.

Zezen (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

portrait
Does anyone know if he has an official portrait as prime minister, and if so can it be added to the infobox? 78.108.56.35 (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * He doesn't have one yet. His office advised they'll post it on their website when he does. Corky  05:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

No mention of the Minister of the Union?
Boris Johnson appointed himself as Minister for the Union on the 26th July, surely there should be a mention of this somewhere?Theprussian (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is mentioned under the Cabinet section. Andysmith248 (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Addition of Sidebar to this article.
I propose the addition of the following sidebar to this article, on the right ->

I believe it is a good idea to keep consistency with other major UK politicians such as Theresa May, David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn. All of these articles have sidebars like to the right. Having a sidebar may also provide the reader with quick access to other articles of interest regarding Boris Johnson.Theprussian (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose: sidebars are widely disliked at Wikipedia and with good reason. While the individual designs can be attractively done, when inserted into articles they appear clunky and often force images out of place. Citing the examples of the May, Cameron, and Corbyn articles is not a very strong argument as none of those articles are of good quality and in each case the sidebar will likely be removed if the they make it to GA or FA. Look at actual FA-rated political biography articles (Nelson Mandela, Vladimir Lenin, Jomo Kenyatta etc) and you will see that there are no sidebars. At present, the article already has a Boris Johnson template at the bottom of the article. That being the case, there really is no need whatsoever for a sidebar here. It is both superfluous and damaging. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Interesting, but if Sidebars are so strongly disliked why do so many articles keep using and maintaining sidebars? I can think of a huge number of Articles with sidebars which have FA and GA Ratings. You've given examples of FA/GA-rated political biography articles without sidebars, but I raise you Barack Obama, Margret Thatcher, George W. Bush. Theprussian (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * “sidebars are widely disliked at Wikipedia” by who? Corky  22:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * By editors, in general. I used to be really big on sidebars - I made a load of them and went around putting them into articles, so I get why some people are so keen on them. However, I received a great deal of opposition to my actions, and over time I came to see why. It's better to just stick with bars at the bottom of the article, which do the same job but without any of the attendant problems produced by sidebars. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the Obama and Bush articles, although rated 'FA', will probably be delisted in the next few years, as they don't really meet FA criteria, particularly on the issue of quality sourcing. Not that that's super relevant here. 10:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My (partial) mistake - the Bush article isn't even an FA! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So these articles are to be delisted not because they have a sidebar but because they lack appropriate sourcing? That is not really relevant to this proposal.Theprussian (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support: Many politcal officeholders, even some less prominent than Johnson, have sidebars in their articles underneath the infobox. Since he is near the beginning of his Premiership, articles related to him, of which there are a good deal already, are bound to increase in number. Andysmith248 (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above comments. Corky  22:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Given that this is becoming a bit of an unofficial RfC, might we just convert this into an actual RfC so that we get a broader range of views on the issue? That would also provide us with a useful framework for allowing a decision to be made at the end of the discussion? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Done! Theprussian (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)