Boris 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 Date Process Result January 12, 2005 Articles for deletion Kept January 2, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed February 4, 2013 Peer review Reviewed A 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

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 16 July 2021.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). University of Oxford Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics of the United Kingdom Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. London High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. 2010s High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Other talk page banners

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Sylvester, Rachel (7 January 2020). "How right wing is Boris Johnson?". Prospect Magazine. Retrieved 25 May 2020. Helm, Toby (19 January 2020). "Liberal, nuanced, cautious: is this the real Boris Johnson?". the Guardian. Retrieved 25 May 2020. Bellack, Marisa; Laurent, Olivier (22 July 2019). "Who is Boris Johnson?". Washington Post. Retrieved 25 May 2020. McTague, Tom (2021-06-07). "The Minister of Chaos". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2021-10-18. McTague, Tom (2021-10-04). "Is Boris Johnson a Liar?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2021-10-18. Comment: The first three sources may be useful if expanding/updating the Political positions and ideology section. The latter two are fairly balanced profiles on Johnson from 2021 examining his public profile and popularity

get rid of mp by his name and hon friba — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vauxhallinsig (talk • contribs)

No, because he is still an MP. See the two discussions of this above. Grachester (talk)

Paragraph 2 says Boris Johnson was added to Michael Howard's shadow cabinet in 2001, but Michael Howard was not leader of the opposition at the time. Later in the article, it says Boris Johnson was added to the shadow cabinet in 2004 JDawg37 (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the last few days before her death, the late Queen is now reported to have said of Boris Johnson, who had been replaced by Liz Truss as Prime Minister: "Well at least I won't have that idiot organising my funeral now." This is reported in The Times by Tim Shipman: [1]. Does protocol dictate that this should not be included in this article, even though the Queen is now deceased? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reported as an established fact in the voice of The Times, or as hearsay? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Shipman wasn't in the room at the time. So I suspect you would describe it as "hearsay". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claim comes from Shipman's latest book, Out, and is given on page 625. The reference is this^[1] if anybody wishes to add it. The information is practically identical to the Times source, as can be expected for a book-pushing piece. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Shipman, Tim (2024). Out: How Brexit Got Done and the Tories Were Undone. William Collins. ISBN 978-0-00-830894-0.

Tim O'Doherty (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also appears in: The Daily Telegraph, parliamentnews.co.uk, The Tatler, Daily Exress, SkyNews Australia, etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under the subheading of "Public Image" there is a part which reads "and has been compared to former US president Donald Trump."

I propose changing this to "and has been compared to Donald Trump, the 45th and 47th President of the US.

This will allow it to read correctly currently and in the future.

Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/ Zaaaaaac (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has he been compared to Trump in the past six days? That might need a new source to support it, as the current references are dated 2016 and 2021. Otherwise, adding the presidency numbers for Trump seems like unnecessary detail. But I agree the word "former" could go. In fact is might be better to says "was compared", as I think it's unlikely to ever happen again. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I have seen. Would dropping the part about Trumps presidency altogether be appropriate? As I'm guessing most people know who he is. I agree it is unnecessary. "was compared" sounds like a one time thing, "has been" sounds like a multiple (2016 & 2021). Interested in your thoughts as I'm new to Wikipedia editing.

"and has been compared to Donald Trump"

or if the President distinction is necessary, "two time US president Donald Trump" - that reads to me as correct currently and in the future - alleviating the need to edit it yet again for this purpose.

While unlikely to happen I don't see it as improbable, think political articles involving both the UK and US maybe mentioning an event which is connected to the two of them. Zaaaaaac (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly advise against editing to include your own personal prediction that Johnson will be compared to Trump in this presidency. If the four existing sources support a number of different instances then "has been compared a number of times" might be better. Perhaps other editors have some ideas. But I'll remove the word "former" for now. Just using Donald Trump might be enough. Thanks for asking here. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that there is a bit of duplication, in the comparison to Trump, across the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]