Jump to content

Talk:Boris Johnson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hobson (talk | contribs) at 21:49, 9 June 2023 (→Resignation: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeBoris Johnson was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 12, 2005Articles for deletionKept
January 2, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on July 24, 2019.
Current status: Former good article nominee

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)[reply]

See {{Infobox person#birth place}}. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Just change it to 8 once his third child with Carrie is born. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
He did resign, "with immediate effect". The Guardian says this, as does the BBC, two reliable sources per WP:RSPSS. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Protection

I think this page needs protection from vandalism. Jord656 (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boris_Johnson&oldid=1159368644"