Talk:Boris Johnson/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Lying in lead

@Spy-cicle: You've reverted this twice now but without offering any explanation. Can you please explain why you do not think that he has been accused of lying and why this isn't worthy of mentioning in the lead? If you think we need better sourcing, here are a couple of extra ones not cited at the moment: [1] [2]. SmartSE (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Has not every PM (and even politician) been accused of lying at one point or another? Shouldn't we be including labels there that are more, uh, Boris-specific? — Czello 15:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Just because he hasn't exactly bucked the trend, doesn't mean it's not (sickeningly) notable? I guess Category:Politicians who have never lied would be an oxymoron (unlike Boris, who is just a regular moron)? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Czello: I don't particularly see the relevance of that, but even so, Johnson has been described by an expert on political lying as: "I have never encountered a senior British politician who lies and fabricates so regularly, so shamelessly and so systematically as Boris Johnson."[3]. SmartSE (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, it's not the lying that's notable in itself, it's what he's lied about. Oops, sorry, what he's been accused of lying about. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

My observation is that although there seem to editors queuing up to add over simplified (out of context, or even misrepresented) summaries of 'sourced' criticism, allegations of wrongdoing, etc., there do not seem to be so many that accept their responsibility to also add the known context, or even accept, that [many|most|all] also have rebuttals, innocent explanations, valid excuses, or other mitigations or explanations or proponents of the opposite view [usually|often|sometimes] given in the same source.

I think the same applies here. An over simplified summary in the lead wrt allegations of 'lying' would not pass the strict Wiki WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:VER policies. Read that BBC article cited just above (as support for saying he has been accused of lying) and I think you will also find plenty of support for qualifying it with "but he does not". -- DeFacto (talk). 15:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, the rebuttals. If Boris had actually admitted lying. that really would be much more notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Not just the lying, though. Along with our own dear Alastair Campbell, The Sydney Morning Herald describes him as "the worst possible PM at the worst possible time" (also has an inspired cartoon depiction there). Just sayin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, per WP:ONUS, the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, not me so you can drop the attitude. Next it violates WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE nor is it given any context. Give me a 21st century prime minister who has not been accused of lying by their political opponents.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Is there a tally on the fib-o-meter somewhere? Other 21st century Prime Ministers exit? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Well I was being BOLD in adding it but you reverted it with the vague justification "Rv, not like this" and then did so again merely mentioning your previous revert. I'm not sure what attitude it is that I need to drop? It is just summarising all of these mentions of him being accused of being a liar that are already in the article and which are mentioned as much, or even more than elitism, cronyism, and bigotry (the other allegations in the lead):

Livingstone called Johnson a "bare-faced liar".

Polly Toynbee referred to him as a "jester, toff, self-absorbed sociopath and serial liar"

a deeply polarising figure, cherished by many older Conservatives but viewed by others as a serial liar

Howard asked Johnson to resign as vice-chairman and shadow arts minister for publicly lying

On 12 September, Johnson denied lying to the Queen over suspension of the parliament

"I have never encountered a senior British politician who lies and fabricates so regularly, so shamelessly and so systematically as Boris Johnson"

In addition to the extra sources I've already mentioned, there is Is Boris Johnson a liar? in The Atlantic and Bungling, lying and sleaze catch up with Britain’s government from The Economist. Then we have Boris Johnson “has demonstrated himself to be liar”, according to SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford. Similarly Dawn Butler made the same allegations and was supported by Starmer who called him "the master of untruth and half-truths". Clearly arguments based on BLP, and VER are spurious and the only possible argument not to include this is WP:WEIGHT but I wager that is in fact a violation of WEIGHT not to include this when clearly so many sources have accused him of lying. Whether we believe this to be true or not is irrelevant and nor is it relevant whether or not the sources end up concluding he is or is not a liar. All that is proposed is that he has been accused of it. Also of irrelevance is whether or not other PMs have lied, so please don't continue with that line of argument. SmartSE (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Whilst you make some fair points regarding opponents critisism, it is mostly a burst of coverage from the last 3-5 months, and mostly of which from the last month. It seems like WP:RECENTISM. We need to more time assess if this is critism will be truly enduring, or will blow over. Will it pass the WP:10Y test? At the moment, I think no. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: The existing content is from sources that are 10 years old. Further the Kuenssberg article is from May 2021, then there are also All the times Boris Johnson flat-out lied in the i from July 2018, Boris Johnson: The most infamous lies and untruths by the Conservative leadership candidate in The Independent from May 2019. SmartSE (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• I think the quantity of RS that have described lying as a key feature of Johnson's premiership is considerable and far larger than that of any other British PM. This includes RS from across the political spectrum. Criticism of his dishonesty was the on the front of almost every British newspaper last week, and not for the first time – that's likely an indication that this is a remarkable/noteworthy aspect of Johnson's reputation. Smartse is correct that documenting the clear weight of RS trumps most BLP/VER arguments per WP:BLPPUBLIC. RS repeatedly said lying was a key feature of Trump's presidency, too, which is why our article on him mentions lying. I think it's worth considering whether the sourcing is equally strong in this case. That said, I think the editors seeking to add it should collate and present a larger collection of sources first so the weight can be clearly shown. Opinion articles and statements by individuals are a lot less valuable than news reporting/editorials; there's a mix of both in Smartse's comment above. I think there should also be a paragraph/few sentences directly discussing in the article body first, so that it's clear there's enough relative prominence for the lead. Jr8825 • Talk 20:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Quite agree, anything should first be added to the article main body. Once that's agreed, a suitable summary for the lead can be considered. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree such a characterisation would need to be in the body of article before lead. If someone wanted to add this and was looking for sources, I put a couple of pretty nuanced and balanced profiles in the Atlantic in "sources ideas" at the top of the talk page which might be good to consider as sources. There's also this article in the BBC.Arcahaeoindris (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, Laura, probably Boris's second biggest fan? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments: The article – which is very lengthy at over 329,000 bytes (it was approx 260,000 bytes a year ago in December 2020) and which may therefore be at risk of WP:RECENTISM – already contains a very large amount of criticism of Boris Johnson, with many accusations including of elitism, cronyism, Islamophobia, racism, bigotry etc. Ken Livingstone accuses him of being a "lazy tosser" – which in my view doesn't seem essential to include in the article as presumably Livingstone hasn't had direct experience of working with Johnson and the "lazy tosser" description is only Livingstone's personal opinion. The COVID-19 pandemic section of the article currently contains 12 paragraphs with most of the section critical of Johnson and nothing about the success of the vaccines to balance the criticism.

Given the overall weight of criticism in the article, I'm inclined to agree with concerns expressed by some editors about WP:NPOV – and as numerous politicans in different political parties have been accused of lying, I'm not convinced that it currently merits being included in the lead section. If Johnson is later proven by an independent report to have lied to the House of Commons, then that would, of course, be significant enough for the lead section. But as things stand, my view is that accusations of him lying is not essential for the lead.

With regard to article length and the risk of recentism, the 329,000+ bytes for this article on Johnson compares with under 139,000 bytes for former PM Gordon Brown, under 150,000 bytes for former PM John Major, under 207,000 bytes for Tony Blair and under 87,000 bytes for former PM James Callaghan. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah right. So, lying to the House of Commons = "significant enough"; lying to the British people = not significant enough. Or maybe we don't get the second one without the luxury of the first one? And yes, the "success of the vaccines" is notable. But that seems to have happened mainly because the advice of the scientists and the public health officials (and the joint effort of thousands of others), and even somewhat in spite of Johnson. Or does he deserve all the glory because he's our leader? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Johnson's relationship with the truth has a level of notability that exceeds that of most politicians - for instance, see this full length BBC article. I don't know if it should be included in the fourth paragraph of the lede, but it should be considered. BilledMammal (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC) I see now this is the same article cited at the top, but I do feel it demonstrates the notability of the topic well BilledMammal (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @BilledMammal:. Much like the creation of veracity of statements by Donald Trump, Johnson's relationship with the truth has attracted more scrutiny and weight of sourcing than most politicians, and therefore warrants some consideration in the article. These sources don't even necessarily criticise him for this: the BBC describes it as a "strategy to bamboozle", and the Atlantic link his communications skills to Johnson's popularity. On the length of the article, some parts could certainly be summarised or merged into Premiership of Boris Johnson. On the COVID vaccination programme, if there is a weight of sources linking its success or praise to Johnson himself for this feel free to include it. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Arcahaeoindris: Veracity of statements by Boris Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created in June but redirected here. As you'll see from the history and talk page, I definitely think that there are sufficient sources to merit it is a standalone. SmartSE (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Is BoJo the first UK prime minister to lie? GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Only the first one deserves any mention? I guess we need to start with Sir Bob. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

John Crace in, The Guardian:

No one knows this better than Boris Johnson. If he has a talent, it’s a talent for lying. And while it may have cost him countless relationships and friendships, it has taken him all the way to Downing Street. Put simply, he has become prime minister by lying better than all the other contenders for the job. But now he has run out of road and the lies have caught up with him. He’s the cartoon villain hopelessly spinning his legs before plunging into the abyss. Brexit has failed to deliver any of its promised rewards and inflation, at more than 5%, is far higher than wage growth. No matter how Boris tries to spin it, people are feeling more broke by the week. Broken Boris Johnson can no longer lie his way out of trouble

Johnson's lies are notable. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Proxima Centauri: This is a political sketch, which is not straightforward news reporting but more like satire. There are plenty of other better sources that I've listed above. SmartSE (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm. As if John Crace is a notable journalist read by thousands of people every day? If it's pure opinion it could be explicitly attributed to Crace as such. Maybe someone keeps "objective data" on number of lies told annually by UK politicians? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: So is Michael Deacon but do you think that this should be cited to support saying things would have been worse with Corbyn as PM? Not sure about objectivity but see Peter Oborne and https://boris-johnson-lies.com/ SmartSE (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's at all useful. It's not just the writer, not just the piece. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Even the Telegraph has dozens of reports of Johnson being called a liar (in the House of Commons, by Channel 4, by the BBC ...), far more than there are for Cameron or May. I can't believe anyone would seriously argue that he is no different from any other PM in this respect. It's a key feature of how he is perceived. --Andreas JN466 13:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Being called one, maybe, but subjective opinion is just that. Being, perhaps, more loved, more loathed, more praised, more criticised, more of a winner, more charismatic, more of a buffoon, more eccentric, more jovial, less egotistical, more successful, less arrogant, more empathetic, more successful, more of an orator, cleverer with the English language, less self-conscious, more open, etc., etc., than any other prime minister or other politician for a long time, makes him more likely to attract more hate speech against him? But wouldn't make the attacks any more honest or worthy, would it? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Excepting his old employer The Telegraph, which of course sacked him for making up a fake quote, my strong impression is that Johnson has received a reception among RS news media and academic sources not dissimilar to that of Trump, i.e. he has been widely panned. These are sources we value more as an encyclopedia than popular views of him. Widespread, well-evidenced accusations that he has a propensity to lie by media outlets with strong reputations, listed as strong sources at WP:RSP, warrant coverage. Inferring they are "hate speech", or a "dishonest"/"unworthy" "attack" on Johnson, suggests you have strong personal opinions on this which could be affecting your editorial judgement; as an editor all that matters are the reputations of the sources and our policies. If you have a particular issue with a specific source, the source noticeboard is the place for a fuller discussion. Otherwise, it's seems pretty unambiguous that there's a significant number of sources consistently saying something about a public figure (that he lies to a significant degree), so it's appropriate for us to mention it. The only questions are 1) whether the weight is strong enough, and the substance non-judgemental enough, to say in wikivoice (i.e. without attributing it to "critics"), which I don't believe is the case here – see for example the FT's careful wording below – and 2) whether there's adequate prominence for a mention in the lead. My initial inclination is there likely is, but as I mentioned above, someone needs to first gather the sources together to demonstrate the weight clearly. I searched very briefly and can find news articles (non-columnist pieces) from quality newspapers pointing out Johnson's dishonesty that date prior to recent events, e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7]. And to demonstrate it isn't just left-leaning sources (not that The Economist or FT are left-leaning), there's even coverage in The Telegraph: [8] [9]. Jr8825 • Talk 16:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The articles linked could also be seen as good-faith misunderstandings of, or feigned indignation at, Johnson's work, and particularly of his sense of humour and satire. And some of the things in those articles are unfounded allegations, and others are just plain misrepresentations - how can they be used as support for you argument? If you believe that they do, doesn't that suggest that you have strong personal opinions on this which could be affecting your editorial judgement? How we choose to interpret Johnson's work will obviously reflect our personal opinions and biases. What we need to remember though is that the reviews are not statements of incontrovertible fact, they reflect the personal opinions and biases of their authors, and they need to be treated as such. That a majority may have a particular bias does not mean that their opinions suddenly become facts. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I see. Where do you propose we go to get a wholly "objective" canonical decision on Johnson's lying? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Look, we say in the lead he is praised as humorous and entertaining, and rightly so. That is subjective opinion, too. (I loved him actually when he was on Have I Got News For You. "Give that man a coconut!" He was hilarious and the wittiest man on set that day.) I think it is legitimate to include both perceptions: the one of him as loveable and entertaining, and the one of his being someone who cannot be trusted to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". Cheers, --Andreas JN466 18:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd be prepared to watch him make a fool of himself for 30 minutes on Have I Got News for You. When it comes to watching him trying to run the country, that's a slightly different matter. But I agree about both perceptions. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Martin, you seem to have strong personal opinions, with reference to what Jr8825 said to me above, do you think they "could be affecting your editorial judgement"? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

DeFact, care to answer my question? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

When did you stop beating your wife? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah good, then you'll admit there is no wholly "objective" canonical decision on Johnson's lying. We're stuck with the "personal opinions and biases" of notable journalists and commentators? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't you think it's telling that we aren't looking at the alternative interpretations of the 'evidence', that give a different verdict? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

"With all due respect", I'd like to see your sources that argue coherently, with that 'evidence', that "he's not a liar". Or just even one, perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, the 'evidence' contains unsubstantiated allegations and misrepresentations which can be dismissed as not proven. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Judge Facto. If we were in a court of law, sure (well, in Scotland anyway). But when the guy appointed to investigate the parties has also had to "step aside", I'm not sure the majority of the British electorate thinks it's "case dismissed". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

But yes, you're right. I should really recuse myself from any remaining discussion here. I have "every respect" for Mr Johnson. I'm just sorry (for the entire country) that "Britain's answer to Donald Trump" is such a self-centred, lying, cretinous tosser. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, many of the 'accusations' are difficult to take at face value because they are founded on misrepresentations/misunderstandings of satire and humorous allegories, metaphors and rhetoric. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't call £112,549 of Lord Brownlow's money, and then a £17,800 fine for using it just "satire and humorous allegories". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC) .... but I guess those manifesto promised 40 new hospitals might be seen as "misunderstandings of metaphors and rhetoric".

Is that what he is reported to have said? I thought the alleged 'lie' was that he said he'd paid for the refurbishment himself (the Electoral Commission inquiry seems to have confirmed he was correct about that). It was the Tory Party that got the fine, for some technicality related to their book-keeping. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

As for the afterthought, do you know what a manifesto is? Had you noticed that since that manifesto was written, the world had been consumed in a pandemic? Do you suppose that Johnson had a hotline to the Wuhan bat caves, and was fully aware that belts would have to be tightened in the face of the £0.5 trillion, or whatever, bill so far, for sustaining the country through it, and that his aspirations were unlikely to be fully achievable in the face of it? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

He told the House he had paid for the refurbishment personally, but he forgot to mention it was Lord Brownlow's money? The fine was because the Conservative Party had failed to follow the law. But then: "Johnson had told Geidt that he did not know who had paid for the refurbishments until the story was reported in the media in February 2021, whereas the Electoral Commission found that he had messaged Lord Brownlow asking for extra funds in November 2020." I thought "new hospitals" meant, you know, hospitals that were "new". But they've never been built anyway, so perhaps it doesn't matter? I've not checked out the alleged "hotline to the Wuhan bat caves"; but I'm guessing it avoided 5G. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC) p.s. And of course, he's been very busy with "work meetings". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, according to the Electoral Commission report, on 9 March 2021 a Cabinet Office internal email said that the Prime Minister had confirmed he had paid "all bills with the supplier personally". It also said that anything that Lord Brownlow, his company, or the Cabinet Office had paid had been repaid in full. That seems to confirm that indeed the PM had paid for the refurbishment personally.

Read the report, and you'll see that the original method chosen to pay for the work was a trust using anonymous donations and that Brownlow was to be its Chair. So it is quite plausible that although the PM knew it was Brownlow who he had to ask to authorise the release of further funds from the trust, that he did not know (because it was an anonymous trust) that Brownlow was actually providing the funds to the trust too.   -- DeFacto (talk). 20:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Then you'd better let Lord Geidt know, as he thought he'd been misled (and said so)? And you might want to adjust the wording of the Downing Street refurbishment controversy article, to get over your point about plausibility. Meanwhile, here's yet another source which thought it was "lying". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC) p.s. had you ever considered a career as a spin doctor? I trust your eyesight is good enough.

It's not the source that thinks he's lying, it's just another source reporting the same predictable accusation made by the opposition.

And where do we see Lord Geidt saying he's been misled? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

For example here? Ah, but we don't have an audio recording of him saying the exact words, yes? Perhaps he was going to resign just to take a holiday to the Wuhan bat caves? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not him saying he was misled, that's just another sensationalised take of the same opposition allegation. The WhatsApp message was discussed in the original Electoral Commission report where it says "29 November 2020: the Prime Minister messaged Lord Brownlow via WhatsApp asking him to authorise further, at that stage unspecified, refurbishment works on the residence. Lord Brownlow agreed to do so, and also explained that the proposed trust had not yet been set up but that he knew where the funding was coming from".

And which bit of the Downing Street refurbishment controversy article do you think needs adjusting? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see, so he was perfectly happy and wasn't going to resign after all? I thought you might want to adjust the Downing Street refurbishment controversy article as it doesn't say that Johnson's position was "quite plausible". Any bit you like, I guess. As long as you have good sources that say that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC) If he did resign, I guess Chris could always spend more time down at the Bullingdon Club.

That looks like more unfounded speculation and mischief-making by the Guardian - "sources say". -- DeFacto (talk). 22:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Whitehall sources often are un-named, aren't they. But they're usually the only sources we have. Poor Chris, now seen by Nick Cohen as a "a pathetic figure. Poor Boris. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah right, today Boris says "sorry" to Lord Geidt (again). Apparently the forgotten texts to Lord Brownlow all got lost when he "changed his mobile phone number"? An entirely plausible explanation, I'm sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, you seem to be up to date with the latest news on this, do you know whether it is true that Labour have asked the watchdog to investigate whether the PM, in cahoots with his wife, lied to their son about the existence of Father Christmas? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

If they include all of his offspring, the investigation will be quite lengthy. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Just dropping another good source about Dorothy Byrne calling him a "known liar" SmartSE (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Smartse, in what sense do you use the word "good"? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  @DeFacto: Reliable, not recent, by a person with no political affiliation. The lecture was also covered by The BBC and Sky News at the time. SmartSE (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Even if it is published in that Trotskyist loony left rag? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggested content

My take on the above discussion is that there is no doubt that there is coverage to justify including this in the lead, but that it needs extra justification in the main body of the text in Boris Johnson#Reception. So I have made a start on what I suggest we insert. A few things to note: Some of the claims are already elsewhere in the article, but I can't see how to avoid this. I've tried to be as concise as possible conscious of the article size. The Oborne info is already in the article. Stewart's comments are quoted in the source which helps demonstrate weight. The Stefanovic video has been mentioned in many RS but not making any judgement on whether it is true or not - I couldn't find an original date for it though. It's hard to pull out any particular conclusion from Kuenssberg's article, but if someone wants to pick out a few more quotes that might be good. Full Fact has an article about Butler's claims, but I thought that was excessive to include in this article. Feel free to edit the text below.

Johnson has been accused of lying or making untruthful or misleading statements throughout his career. BBC News described this as a strategy to "bamboozle the listener with a blizzard of verbiage, suggesting agreement, but not committing to anything". A 2021 analysis in The Atlantic suggested Johnson's communication style was a honed political skill that contributed to his popularity, saying it is "based on mocking everyone else’s bullshit, rather than duping people about his own ambition". In 2019, The Independent listed "his seven most notorious untruths" as fabricating a quote whilst at The Times for which he was sacked, creating numerous euromyths while working for The Daily Telegraph in Brussels, misrepresenting events during the Hillsborough disaster while the editor of The Spectator, lying to Michael Howard about his extramarital affair for which he was sacked, breaking manifesto promises during his first term as London Mayor, promising that leaving the EU would provide £350 million per week for the NHS and for claiming that he said nothing about Turkey during the Brexit referendum. In 2020 Rory Stewart called Johnson "the most accomplished liar in public life - perhaps the best liar ever to serve as prime minister". Lawyer and trade unionist Peter Stefanovic produced a video chronicling and debunking misleading claims that Johnson had made to parliament which had been viewed 35 million times by September 2021. In February 2021, the political journalist and author Peter Oborne, who has written several books about the lies told by politicians, published a book about the lies told by Johnson, in which he wrote "I have never encountered a senior British politician who lies and fabricates so regularly, so shamelessly and so systematically as Boris Johnson." Stefanovic's video "partly inspired" Green Party MP Caroline Lucas to organise the leaders of six opposition parties to write to the Speaker in April 2021 urging him to allow a debate on Johnson's "consistent failure to be honest" when making statements in the House of Commons. They noted six examples where he had given misleading information. The Guardian noted that Johnson "almost never corrects the record in the chamber" and that while Johnson's spokespeople insist he follows the Ministerial Code of which honesty is part of, "No 10 will sometimes acknowledge that an error was made, but more usually brushes aside the complaint or argues that Johnson was misunderstood". Opposition MPs Dawn Butler and Ian Blackford have both openly called Johnson a liar in the House of Commons. Butler was supported by her leader Keir Starmer who accused Johnson of being "the master of untruth and half-truths". In May 2021 Laura Kuenssberg, political editor for BBC News noted that it was "rare for opposition parties to accuse a prime minister, on the record, of lying" and that Johnson's "relationship with the truth is under intense scrutiny".

References

SmartSE (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, is this or the lead section or for the main body? As I said above, I think anything should first be added to the article main body. Once that's agreed, a suitable summary for the lead can be considered. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123:In Boris Johnson#Reception (I did say). For now, I'm still only suggesting we add the single word "lying" to the lead. SmartSE (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Some single words mean a lot. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd support adding, or restoring, that word. It meets the standard set by WP:DUE in my view. These are prominent criticisms reported across the board. From the Telegraph: "Downing Street hits back at Channel 4 News after Boris Johnson labelled a 'known liar'", "the alpha and omega of BBC coverage (especially when a by-election looms), which is that Brexit is dreadful and Boris is a liar.", "Boris Johnson is a 'serial liar', says MP (Caroline Lucas)", "PMQs: Ian Blackford asks Boris Johnson if he is a liar", etc. --Andreas JN466 18:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Smartse, are you going to present the case for the defence too? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@DeFacto: What salient points do you think are missing? His response to lying to parliament is included. I have thought about adding more general comment, but of the sources cited, only The Atlantic and Kuenssberg analyse where the truth really lies, but neither of them come to any firm conclusions. It's also difficult to get the WEIGHT of these right because they are opinionated rather than journalistic. What I've included so far, could be cited to various RS which I think demonstrates that they are WEIGHTy points. SmartSE (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Isn't "the alpha and omega of BBC..." criticising the BBC, not Johnson? And "Downing Street hits back..." criticising Channel 4? EddieHugh (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The suggested content immediately veers into the political. The Independent list isn't (entirely) lies: I know of no political leader who hasn't broken manifesto promises; this isn't lying (promising with no intention of doing something might be, but that's very hard to prove). He apologised in 2004 for the Spectator article; again, this isn't lying (deliberately attempting to deceive). Some of the 'euromyths' turned out to be correct. The message here is that one source stating something isn't enough for us to repeat the structure and content of that source. Then there's "trade unionist Peter Stefanovic" (by definition left-wing, so by definition an opponent), "Green Party MP Caroline Lucas" (a political opponent), "Opposition MPs Dawn Butler and Ian Blackford" (more political opponents), "leader Keir Starmer" (yet another political opponent), and Laura Kuenssberg commenting on what political opponents said. And Rory Stewart, who also opposed Johnson on major political matters, although he was in the same party. Most (all?) of the content is already mentioned in the article, with slightly less of a political lean. EddieHugh (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@EddieHugh: It's not up to me or you to decide whether The Independent are correct or not, it is regarded as reliable and the content just repeats with attribution what they reported. This applies more widely to this discussion - we are not here to debate whether they are lies or not, but to document what others have said, representatively. That the criticism comes from political opponents is also a moot point - it has been reported by reliable sources. Also, as I've said repeatedly, I already think that the addition of "lying" to the lead is merited off the existing content, but others have opined that it needed to be spelled out more explicitly, hence writing this. SmartSE (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Something published by a reliable source makes it eligible for inclusion. We need reasons to include it. It being of questionable accuracy is a good reason not to include it, given the quantity of available information on this person. Have many other sources listed as lies all of the things that The Independent did? This article is already WP:TOOBIG and awash with criticism (and, as I mentioned, most of the proposed content is already in it). Why repeat it or copy one source's presentation? EddieHugh (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

EddieHugh: Absolutely, the Telegraph piece is critical of the BBC, but these pieces confirm that accusations of lying are commonly levelled at Johnson in mainstream media. The passage in the lead is about what supporters praise and what detractors accuse him of. It doesn't try to endorse or rule on the justification of either the positives or the negatives but merely lists the talking points. And accusations of lying are a very prominent talking point with Johnson, just like his charm, affability and likeableness. That's why I think the mention of lying in the lead was and is due. Cheers, --Andreas JN466 09:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Smartse, apart from what @EddieHugh has already said, which I fully agree with, particularly wrt accusations and assertions made by opposition party members and the use of lists of 'lies' which contain non-lies, I can't see any discussion of the appropriateness of interpreting satire, metaphors, and rhetoric as 'lies', and we should not be characterising denials of unsubstantiated allegations, such as those related to the refurbishment and Christmas gatherings, as lies. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, unsubstantiated allegation. What we need is someone trustworthy like Simon Case to investigate everything. He should be able to quiz all the right people. But those poor Met coppers must feel a bit silly - they're the ones who let everyone in to the non-existent Downing Street party in the first place....? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for drafting above. I've added what I think is quite an important point about a "strategy to bamboozle", and also including the Atlantic profile, which I think analyses Johnson's communications in quite a nuanced way. My additions in italics. I'm not sure what to quote though from the Atlantic profile - please feel free to change what I've included if there are key points to include. I think overall such a paragraph needs to be more concise though, it is far too long for an already overly long article as it stands.Arcahaeoindris (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I think your additions are useful improvements. Do we need a separate article on Public persona and reception of Boris Johnson? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

As per WP:BLP, all biographies should be written cautiously and conservatively (with a small c). I think it would be prudent to wait for forthcoming reports from investigations to ascertain whether Boris Johnson has lied to the House of Commons or lied to the public regarding allegations of Christmas parties or the Downing Street flat refurbishment. Whether people strongly dislike Johnson, are big fans of Johnson or have no strong feelings either way (I'm in the latter category) the desire for this article to be in a neutral, dispassionate BLP tone should be uppermost in considerations.

Some of the accusations of Johnson being careless with the truth refer to before he became an MP, when he was a journalist. It's certainly not uncommon for journalists to be economical with the truth. Journalists such as Polly Toynbee and Peter Oborne are strongly critical of Johnson for many reasons and not just because they regard him as a liar. Ken Livingstone is a political opponent. These accusations of lying are, in my view, appropriate for the main body of the article, but not yet due weight for the lead section. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Johnson has not been accused of lying for some 12 days now. Not since the House of Commons adjourned for Christmas on 16 December. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

That made me smile, Martin! Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kind Tennis Fan: I think the significance of this allegation doesn't come from any individual accusation from Johnson's various opponents, or even whether he's determined by an investigation to have lied to parliament (or not), but from the extent to which this has come to be part of public perceptions of him/media coverage/his image, as is noted by RS. Dishonesty is an accusation that has frequently popped up with Johnson over many years – it's the quantity and consistency of these allegations that is notable in my view, as it elevates the issue above WP:NOTNEWS and makes it biography-appropriate content. For comparison, I'm doubtful that any of the charges currently mentioned in the lead ("elitism, cronyism, and bigotry") have been laid against Johnson as frequently as lying has during his premiership. Jr8825 • Talk 22:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

That said, I think the suggested content above may be overly long/detailed. I hope to get round to offering a shortened alternative. Jr8825 • Talk 22:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kind Tennis Fan: Saying that Johnson is accused by critics of lying is not the same as saying that he actually did lie (though we say that too, in Wikipedia's voice, with regard to the Petronella Wyatt affair for example).

In my view, there is no point being cautious about prominently mentioning accusations of lying here in Wikipedia when people read them on a near daily basis in the mainstream press (not just of this country but around the world). I am in favour of upholding strong BLP standards as much as the next person, but this horse has bolted ... do a Google News search for "boris johnson" lying|liar for the past month alone to appreciate the ubiquity of these accusations. --Andreas JN466 20:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of "lying" in the lead. It should replace "cronyism" which is barely mentioned in the article and is by no means a prominent characteristic in reliable sources. I like the suggested content but it is probably too long and some of it is already in the article. Even so, I think it should be included.

It will be interesting to see what lies this serial liar tells in PMQ today. I wonder if he will bring his own booze with him for his resignation party? No Great Shaker (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Having read the draft again, I think we should add it to the article as is, but minus Oborne (duplication) and any mention of the Stefanovic video (dubious). No Great Shaker (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Sir Keir Starmer said: "There we have it. After months of deceit and deception, the pathetic spectacle of a man who has run out of road." from PMQs: Boris Johnson faces calls to quit after lockdown party apology. Lying should be in the lead. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Starmer said "the 'party’s over' and the British public could see he had been 'lying through his teeth' about parties at Downing Street." And Johnson didn't look too pleased about that. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• I promised to offer a cut-down version of the proposed text, so here it is. I think the above text is overly long, and relies too heavily on quotes (in particular, some quotes are subjective analysis whose points are unclear) so here's my suggestion:

Shortened paragraph

Johnson has been accused of lying or making untruthful or misleading statements throughout his career. BBC News described this as a strategy to "bamboozle the listener with a blizzard of verbiage", and a 2021 analysis in The Atlantic suggested Johnson's communication style was a honed political skill that contributed to his popularity. In 2019, The Independent listed his "most notorious untruths", which included fabricating a quote whilst at The Times for which he was sacked, creating euromyths while working for The Daily Telegraph in Brussels, misrepresenting events during the Hillsborough disaster while the editor of The Spectator, lying to Michael Howard about his extramarital affair and promising that leaving the EU would provide £350 million per week for the NHS. The Guardian noted that Johnson "almost never corrects the record in the chamber" and that while Johnson's spokespeople insist he follows the Ministerial Code of which honesty is part of, "No 10 will sometimes acknowledge that an error was made, but more usually brushes aside the complaint or argues that Johnson was misunderstood". Opposition MPs Dawn Butler and Ian Blackford have both openly called Johnson a liar in the House of Commons. Butler was supported by her leader Keir Starmer who accused Johnson of being "the master of untruth and half-truths". In May 2021 Laura Kuenssberg, political editor for BBC News noted that it was "rare for opposition parties to accuse a prime minister, on the record, of lying" and that Johnson's "relationship with the truth is under intense scrutiny". References

The above is only a paraphrase/shortening of Smartse's text. It may have to be updated to reflect allegations of dishonesty surrounding the no. 10 lockdown parties, but at the moment the story is still developing so I think it's better to keep it to a separate section. @Proxima Centauri: I agree dishonesty/lying should be mentioned in the "critics have accused him" sentence of the lead, particularly as his dishonesty as has now been the subject of headline news for a prolonged period of time. I think the main thing holding it back is the lack of coverage in the article body, which is needed to we have equal relative emphasis. I think it should be inserted into the lead when the paragraph Smartse or I have suggested is added. Here's another link from yesterday making the weight of sourcing for lying clear: "Until now, Boris Johnson has somehow managed to dodge the clouds of cronyism and dishonesty that loom over his leadership, retaining his party’s support as a vote-winner" (FT editorial). Jr8825 • Talk 19:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The shortened paragraph is excellent and, per WP:BOLD should be added to the article now. If it needs any amendments, that can be done by normal editing without a need to review on this page. And there is no need to wait for the result of an inquiry, either. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy with this, but I'd suggest incorporating the existing Oborne content into it - this is what I had originally intended to do, rather than duplicating it. I do also agree with Martin's earlier point though about creating a separate article, whether that be on his public persona or specifically about alleged lies / dishonesty. SmartSE (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you about moving the Oborne piece into this. If there is a sub-article, I think it would have to be about his public persona overall. Dishonesty is one aspect but the scope would inevitably expand to view the bigger picture in which the fundamental issues are Johnson's perceived lack of ethical and moral integrity. Oh, sorry, I forgot to say alleged. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The new proposed content looks good, thanks @Jr8825:, I would support it being added to the article in its current state. Definitely move Oborne piece to this too. I suggest more content could be summarised from the Atlantic article though. It gives a specific and bizarre example about a statement Johnson made about being a visiting Professor at Monash University in Australia (the reporter contacts the University and finds this to be untrue). It also more broadly discusses the veracity of Johnson's statements as questionable but intended to invoke an emotional response or connecting with what it terms a "deeper truth" believed by his supporters, therefore seemingly not impacting his popularity but contributing to him being divisive or controversial, as his critics recognise these as lies. It even says "The problem with labeling Johnson an out-and-out liar is that the charge conceals far more than it reveals". I'm not doing a great job at summarising it here, but I think it's pretty nuanced and could have more weight here. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Arcahaeoindris: I'll try and remember to have a full read through it. If you have some suggestions though, please go ahead! Jr8825 • Talk 06:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Incompetence

There has been a lengthy discussion about the inclusion of "lying, elitism, cronyism, and bigotry" in the lead but, from what I have seen and heard, there are far greater concerns about Johnson's incompetence than about any of the last three. The article mentions incompetence only once (when he was at Oxford) and there are two pieces about him being unfit for office (Cummings and Max Hastings). We could do with some more RS on this so that his incompetence can justifiably be included in the lead.

Of course, it doesn't help that the Daily Star is now saying that Johnson COULD organise a piss-up in a brewery. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't accusations of incompetence effectively extend from the accusations listed? i.e. his opponents argue he's incompetent because of his dishonesty, elitist/arrogant attitude, cronyism etc. I'm not sure we want to include highly subjective statements, such as assessments of competence, in a BLP lead, even if they were attributed. Jr8825 • Talk 05:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Not as things stand, no. It's the same as his lying, discussed above. We decided that much more was needed in the article text before we could justifiably add it to the lead, and that was done. I think we would need much more about his incompetence too, to satisfy BLP. I can see that dishonesty, arrogance, etc. are root causes of incompetence but I think there is much more to it than that. For example, his inability to concentrate on detail which manifests itself in these stupid slogans and tabloid-speak that we keep hearing. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Searching for more RSs so that "incompetence can justifiably be included in the lead" seems a bit the wrong way round. Yes, he is pretty incompetent, in my view. But then he partly seems to play on this persona of slight bumbling buffoonery? Then there's also the question of possible brain fog, which no one seems to have considered. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC) p.s. what happened to Boris's "big push" for everyone to get a COVID booster before the end of the year? That was 17 days ago and we're still only at 63.1%?

@No Great Shaker, is that how you think Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written? We list our own preconceptions (and I note from your user page that you are a self-professed Labour supporter and socialist) of the topic and then search for reliable sources that support those opinions. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Sigh! This is getting too much like hard work. Perhaps I should organise a BYOB gathering in my garden? Bit parky, though. If an editor thinks a particular topic should be included in the article, they must have RS. If there is insufficient RS, it can be a good idea to discuss the topic first rather than be bold. That is what happened with the lying topic and so it makes sense to do the same with Johnson's incompetence. The first two responses confirm my actual doubts about this topic because it's true that incompetence is more effect than cause, so we would end up with a list of cock-ups which are best described chronologically as narrative items. It is better to focus on the causes, such as dishonesty, bigotry and absence of integrity. An inevitable effect of these causes is incompetence. Not much else to be said, really, so I won't pursue this for the present, depending on how the article develops. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You could instigate a thorough investigation of the facts and then sack yourself? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Google on Boris Johnson incompetence Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realise he knew how to use Google. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Typo needs fixing

I don't have enough edits yet to edit a page like this, so someone please fix:

"The Conservative Party sre 10 points behind"

 Done Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Allegations of elitism and class prejudice

I added the sub-section "Allegations of elitism and class prejudice" but it was removed for some reason. I added it as a sub-section of "Reception". In the sub-section, I linked two web pages which are credible sources which verify that Boris Johnson made derogatory comments about 20% of the UK population (over 10 million people) and "blue collar men". It is a logical addition to the previous sub-section (allegations of racism and Islamophobia) as it relates to derogatory comments about groups. In such an extensive article as this, such comments shouldn't be removed. There's no reason why they should be removed. They are factual, not disputed and significant enought to be major talking points during the election. I was thanked by another user when this section was added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MythDetector (talk • contribs) 12:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@MythDetector: I cited WP:WEIGHT when I removed it - basically we should be summarising that has been written about Johnson in proportion to how many sources exist. With only those two sources [10] [11], it is not apparent that the allegations have been reported sufficiently to merit inclusion, especially as a separate section, unlike accusations of racism. In some other biographies, those would probably be good to include, but for someone like Johnson, who has so much written about them, the bar is set higher. If you read the rest of this talk page, you should get an idea of how we work to decide what to include or not. I will try to do some more research to try and find more sources. SmartSE (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Smartse: Those comments were reported sufficiently. There are articles about those comments in the Independent [[12]], Mirror [[13]], Huffington Post [[14]], Guardian [[15]], Daily Star [[16]], Daily Mail [[17]], inews [[18]], by MPs [[19]]. MythDetector (talk)

@MythDetector: Thanks for those. Of them though, only the independent, guardian, inews and possibly huffpost are considered reliable sources - see WP:RSP for list of some specific sources either permitted or discouraged. Tabloids are a definite no no. Only inews seems to support that these are allegations of classism however and none of them say elitism. It might be appropriate however to include the quotes in the Boris_Johnson#The_Spectator_and_MP_for_Henley:_1999–2008 section given that they have attracted coverage over a number of years. It would also be good to check Purnell's biography of him as this covers the period and if it these are mentioned, that would be a strong indication of WEIGHT. Anyone else like to chime in? SmartSE (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Smartse: There is no disputing that those comments were made. One of the sources I cited was a factchecker. If they are also mentioned by Daily Mail, Mirror and other papers with major circulation as well as by an MP, that goes towards showing that they are "discussed sufficently" even if you claim those are "not reliable". MythDetector (talk)

@MythDetector: Yes obviously not disputing that, but he's written many things and so we need to determine that they are sufficiently noteworthy before including them here. It's not me "claiming" that those sources are not reliable - this represents the community consensus here about how to write biographies. You may not think it, but I am trying to help you find a way to get this included. SmartSE (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment: As mentioned previously on the talk page, the article on Johnson, as it currently stands, is very lengthy at over 355,000 bytes. In my view the article should be trimmed in places. Johnson has written many hundreds of articles and some of them were satirical in tone. Winston Churchill was also a journalist. There is a separate Wikipedia article for Winston Churchill as writer. It may be best to split articles for a more manageable length. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)