Talk:Boris Johnson

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.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 12, 2005Articles for deletionKept
January 2, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
February 4, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on July 24, 2019.
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 24, 2025.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2023 (2)

[edit]

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


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

Political Donors still missing

[edit]

I wonder, that there is no mention of the discussions around political donors and about the Boris Files at Distributed Denial of Secrets

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/08/what-are-the-boris-johnson-files-former-prime-minister

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/oct/10/the-1m-man-why-did-boris-johnson-take-his-donor-to-ukraine

https://ddosecrets.org/article/boris-files Martin Mair (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a native English speaker, so maybe someone other will do this job. Martin Mair (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Too Long Banner

[edit]

I added {{|Too long}} to this page today as it's getting extremely lengthy; it's just under 15k words, which is usually the hard cutoff point for pages that definitely need to be shortened. While Boris has undeniably had a long career, is there anything that could be spun off into its own page or strikes others as too much detail? For example, there's a page for his time as mayor, but then this page goes into long detail about his time there as well.

I'll have a deeper look later, but there definitely strikes me as a few places that need a format or trim. e.g. The "First Cabinet" section:

Johnson appointed his Cabinet on 24 July 2019,[397] dismissing 11 senior ministers and accepting the resignation of six others.[398][399] The mass dismissal was the most extensive postwar Cabinet reorganisation without a change in the ruling party.[400][401]

Johnson made Dominic Raab the First Secretary of State and foreign secretary.

Sajid Javid became Chancellor of the Exchequer

Priti Patel became Home Secretary.
Are those one-sentence paragraphs adding much? etc. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historians and biographers

[edit]

The introduction states "His tenure also encompassed several controversies and scandals, and is viewed as the most scandalous premiership of modern times by historians and biographers alike." My question would be is this the view of all historians and biographers or is it just some? If it is only some the sentence needs the word some in it, if it is many or a majority the words many or majority can be used instead but the sentence should not in my view stay as it is now. Whatever is done it also need citations. Firestar47 (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is sourced from Wikipedia. Content is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.