Talk:July 2022 United Kingdom government crisis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Requested move 7 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The opposes have it. The opposes have it. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

---

2022 United Kingdom government crisis → July 2022 British government resignations – Similar to June 2016 British shadow cabinet resignations. Also, it is not really a crisis. Peter Ormond 💬 10:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Jeremy Corbyn wasn't prime minister. Also, such events could be referred to as crises. And why "British", specifically? Why not UK? Nythar (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The number of resignations have reached a level at which whole swathes of the government cannot function. That seems to be a crisis 213.105.55.131 (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support: more specific, unambiguous and gives more information (without being much wordier). Is this uniquely the "crisis" of the UK government in 2022? June 2016 British shadow cabinet resignations is a good precedent for article title. — Bilorv (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Since I wrote this, we've seen Johnson's resignation, which I was not expecting to be covered at this article; nonetheless, it is strictly a governmental figure resigning from a minister role and fits under the proposed title. I still object to the word "crisis" and the implicit assumption of uniqueness (the government has seen many "crises" this year, if that's what you want to call them). — Bilorv (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a government and cabinet event, rather than a shadow cabinet. The consequences of this event has included the resignation of the Prime Minister himself and the mass amount of resignations has proven to be record-breaking. This crisis has created a situation in which the UK government currently cannot function entirely. An event like this is large and consequential enough to be considered a government crisis. The short-term and long-term consequences of this event is more than just resignations, therefore I don't believe it would be accurately described as simply that. Bnwkr (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  The word "crisis" doesn't mean "has important consequences", "breaks records", or "causes something not to function". It comes from a medical context in which it means a point (or a very short period of time) after which an ill person either recovers or dies. I detest the journalistic usage, where so many developments are referred to as "crises" practically every week. This kind of entry at Wikipedia, however, is basically journalistic, so the word "crisis" fits here well. Politicians and statesmen and journalists give their audiences what they want: excitement.

  If it were true that Boris Johnson would either fall imminently from office or else turn the tables and proceed along a path of becoming stronger in office, and also true that which of those two outcomes would occur were currently being fought over, with the winner undecided but about to emerge in the very near future, then "crisis" might be a good word. But it is not true, given that he is obviously on his way out of the door. There is no "crisis".

  Having said all of the above, I neither support nor oppose this motion. Better to concentrating on producing a good article. Treltnitcher (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose We don't yet know what the right title for the article is as it's still playing out. Likely, the the theme of the title will be along the lines of Resignation of Boris Johnson or the Collapse of the Boris Johnson Premiership. Leave as is until it all plays out. DeCausa (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Love the title Collapse of the Boris Johnson Premiership Haveanimpact (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  I wasn't actually suggesting that as a title, which was a red link when I posted the message. DeCausa (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Keep it as it is, we currently don't know how or when this will end and is far more significant that previous resignations due to it's sheer volume and the speed at which it's toppled a party leader (and PM). Kalamikid (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose There are significant constitutional implications even after Johnson's announcement, and the scale of resignations impeded the work of government - some government departments even had to cancel high-level meetings simply because there weren't enough ministers for the meetings (or any - such as Education for a while). The consequences are still unfolding, but are not confined to the resigning group or their political party, as the shadow cabinet resignations were. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 12:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This was a political and constitutional crisis without precedent. The article should be titled in a way that reflects the significance of this event. Willwal1 (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Also agree with previous, including @Kalamikid and @DeCausa. We don't know how this situation will play out -- I suspect it will only be over once a new PM has kissed hands with HM. Willwal1 (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I would most definitely characterise this is as a crisis. Additionally, adding "July" to the beginning of the article's title is completely unnecessary. Unless another crisis were to take place later this year, there's absolutely no need to specific in which month it occurred in the title Rwpardey01 (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose As per above KeyKing666 (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a case could be made that July 2022 British government resignations should be an article in itself, with the scope of this page expanded to include the previous crises that overlap with this one, i.e. Partygate and the vote of no confidence 131.111.243.147 (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support - As it's not a crises. Nobody's lives are in danger. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  It's a political / constitutional crisis. Willwal1 (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  The definition of a crisis is "A time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger". People's lives being at danger is not a requirement for something to be classified as a crisis. Clamless (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, Wiktionary defines crisis as "A crucial or decisive point or situation; a turning point. / An unstable situation, in political, social, economic or military affairs, especially one involving an impending abrupt change." That's exactly what this is. WaggersTALK 09:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support something like "2022 British Government resignations". Have sources described it as a "crisis"? Genuine question - I've not seen that but of course I've not read everything. :) Absent reliable sources describing something as a "crisis" I do not think we should be doing so in wiki-voice. Our own views on what a crisis is or isn't are largely irrelevant. firefly ( t · c ) 16:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  I've definitely seen it described as a crisis. Global News, Al Jazeera, CNN, and the Business Standard Rwpardey01 (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  But those are editorial comments from news agencies. Wikipedia is supposed to limit editorializing. It's why, the Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election are referred to as such, instead of as the 2020 Presidential Insurrection, despite many news articles referring to it as an insurrection. Insurrection is editorialized. Crisis is editorialized. It is not a Neutral Title. Fbifriday (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Weak support I usually recommend waiting until the event is over to decide on a proper name, but we should not forget that we have to use neutral language at all times (unless it simply cannot be used). In this case, the suggested title appears to convey the meaning and avoid unnecessary dramatisation, as this is not a ‘crisis’ that would endanger livelihoods. And I’m not entirely sure if the sources describe it as a crisis either; ‘resignations’ is the word that is being thrown around. Keivan.f^Talk 16:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose As per above. This mayhem is definitely defined as a 'crisis'. Sources that describe this as a crisis include: [1][2][3][4][5]. Edl-irishboy (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the reasons many have already given. Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. An exodus of government officials in this volume is a cabinet crisis. NPOV is satisfied in my opinion. Bgv. (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. In my opinion, this is a crisis and is being described as such. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support IMO, should be "2022" rather than "July 2022". But I do agree it shouldn't be called "crisis". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  We're only half way through through the year.... But yes. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Weak support Agree mostly with what Keivan.f said. It is a series of resignations, like it or not 'crisis' is value laden. This is a crisis in certain respects: it is a cabinet crisis as suggested by Bgv. and it is most certainly a crisis for Boris Johnson, but it is not a UK government crisis. This is really just an orchestrated political powerplay to force him out of office that has been timed to have minimal effect so a new leader can be appointed prior to parliament entering summer recess: certainly not ideal but far from a crisis, especially since Boris Johnson resigned within two days, effectively resolving the 'crisis' part of this saga. Just because some sources are describing it as a crisis does not justify labelling it as such: as I said it is clearly value laden and (mass) resignations appear to be the most widely used term. My main objection here is 'British': title should be July 2022 UK/United Kingdom government resignations as it is the UK government not the British governmen - I would point out that one of the resignations was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis), Northern Ireland being part of the UK but not Britain.John wiki: If you have a problem, don't mess with my puppy... 18:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  British: adjective 1. Relating to Great Britain or the United Kingdom, or to its people or language. Example: ‘the British government’ (Lexico). Ham II (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Ham II Yes but no: in this context it is not an adjective - in the case of the British Goverment it is an organisation/institution meaning you are using it as a proper noun. In other words, you are describing an entity ("a government that is british") rather than calling it by its name. Every wikipedia article I can find describes it as the UK government, I googled 'British government' and all the immediate results called it the UK government. On their websites and official social media accounts they all use UK government or HM government. Calling it this isn't going to cause anyone any confusion, it is simply incorrect and not consistent with wiki styling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John wiki (talk • contribs) 12:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Also see: [[6]] British (brit-ish) adjective 1. of or relating to Great Britain or its inhabitants. 2. used especially by natives or inhabitants of Great Britain: In this dictionary, “Brit.” is an abbreviation for “British usage.” noun 3. the people native to or inhabiting Great Britain. 4. British English. 5. the Celtic language of the ancient Britons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John wiki (talk • contribs) 12:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Weak support as the current title seems to be hyperbole. However I wonder if the article would be better if it were reorganised to be about Johnson's resignation (and everything leading up to it), with the title Resignation of Boris Johnson. — Czello 18:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose It is most definitely a crisis. No PM in history has had as many government resignations in such a short space of time, to name it anything else would be misleading particularly when it is so readily called a crisis in reliable sources as highlighted by Edl-irishboy. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Move to "Collapse of the Boris Johnson Premiership" because that is what has happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haveanimpact (talk • contribs) 18:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  I would also support this per my comment above. — Czello 19:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Weak support - Agree with general sentiment of all the supports so far but I think 'Resignation of Boris Johnson' is a better title to go with Tweedle (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose It is a crisis - support of what @Stevie fae Scotland said. CallMeHyphen (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose It is a crisis GRALISTAIR (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Peter Ormond RayAdvait (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Resignations" is better than "crisis" "Resignations" is information / content. "Crisis" is a useless subjective characterization. Maybe "mass resignations" is even more informative North8000 (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Then let's make it Resignation of Boris Johnson as ultimately that's the resignation that matters. Bondegezou (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Any other country, we would be calling it a government crisis and no one would bat an eye. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. It is/was a crisis because there were already so many ministerial resignations that effective government could not be carried on, which seems to have been why Johnson eventually quit. Errantios (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. This is the textbook definition of a crisis. Clamless (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support "crisis" could mean anything. The new title would be a better description. Fork me (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  While different people have different ideas of what a crisis is, it's actual definition is "A time of intense trouble, difficulty, or danger". This event fits the definition of crisis. Clamless (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  How? Is the government going to collapse? Is healthcare going to stop functioning in the UK? Is the government in danger of takeover by a hostile party? I don't see any of that. Ministers are resigning to induce PM to resign (which he is). It's resignations, or reshuffle, not a crisis. Fbifriday (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  It leaves a lot of ongoing govt business and legislation in limbo at least: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/08/policies-that-could-fail-under-a-lame-duck-government That, and the way the PM has behaved in pleading a presidential-style personal mandate and defying his party. Plutonium27 (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. This is a governmental crisis if I have ever seen one, I support what @Stevie fae Scotland said. Aeyeu (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. Wouldn’t a better title be “Fall of Boris Johnson” or something along those lines? Bondegezou (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment That title is hardly in line with W:NPOV. Maybe "Resignation of Boris Johnson" would work. Gust Justice (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Resignation of Theresa May redirects to the relevant party leadership election. I don't know how this is any different. Fbifriday (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: In my view the word "crisis" has a journalistic tone rather than an encyclopedic tone. I think an alternative description for the mass resignations would be preferable. The "crisis" – for want of a better word – lasted two days and the UK government continued. Nothing totally collapsed. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I would agree. PM is resigning, the government itself is still functioning. The crisis seems to be entirely inside one party, to be honest. I would tend to lean toward merging this entire article with 2022 British cabinet reshuffle and left with the title 2022 United Kingdom cabinet reshuffle. Fbifriday (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per everyone else. Love of Corey (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - This clearly is about more than just the cabinet resignations now, especially with Johnson's resignation, and the article has expanded to reflect this. To change the title to only be about the resignations feels inappropriate and unnecessarily restrictive. However, I would support a potential move to a name that better indicates that this is mainly about the Conservative Party rather than the government as a whole. Builder018 (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: Boris Johnson is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, not of just Great Britain ─ Northern Ireland is still a part of the Union. It might sound pedantic, but there is a difference between the UK and just Britain. Crisis also seems to fit the situation between the beginning of the resignations and the announcement by PM Johnson. VideōEtCorrigō (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Support It's a set of resignations. Crisis is too ambiguous and smells of WP:RECENTISM in the calling of what may be a set of resignations a "crisis". Zoozaz1 (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

It’s hardly RECENTISM. It’s led to the resignation of the Prime Minister! I think we can confidently say that the impact of events will be remembered for a long time! Bondegezou (talk) 07:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Support - As there was 'no crises'. No lives were lost & nobody was running around hysterically. Only the BBC news & other news media got overly dramatic, for viewer ratings. GoodDay (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - It is a crisis. The United Kingdom no longer has an effective working government, nor will have until autumn. Plutonium27 (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Wholeheartedly disagree. The United Kingdom Government is more than the people who are leading it, it incudes everyone all the way down the line. The leaders are coming and going, but it's not like social welfare, healthcare, and all that is gonna just stop. The government itself is still functioning, despite the ineffective leadership. Fbifriday (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment - I note the number of Supports for the title change proposition from non-UK editors. I question their understanding of the situation as it does and will continue to affect UK parliamentary and governmental functioning. Plutonium27 (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

UK Wikipedia is not written exclusively by, or for, UK audiences. The international response of "This is not a crisis" should indicate to you that you are viewing this from a domestic lens, not an international lens, not that people from outside the UK don't understand the government. This is about article naming standards on Wikipedia, not who or what is being edited. Fbifriday (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I cannot share your apparent certainty re the view through the 'international lens'. Anyway, how about we judge the use of 'crisis' the same way as was obscenity per Jacobellis v. Ohio. Plutonium27 (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - It might be good to note for some auguring that this isn't about the government as a whole but only the prime minister and his cabinet, that in the context of British Politics "The Government" refers to the Prime Minister, his ministers, and various departments they run. A crisis of The Governemnt does not suggest as it might in the US that the entire legislative and judicial system has broken down. Cakelot1 (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Our sister project Wiktionary defines a crisis as "A crucial or decisive point or situation; a turning point. / An unstable situation, in political, social, economic or military affairs, especially one involving an impending abrupt change." That's exactly what this is. WaggersTALK 09:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Are you able to articulate how the UK government is unstable? Sure, there are people coming and going, but the government isn't about to collapse or anything. Definitions I can find refer to "political instability" as a government that is in imminent danger of collapse. Fbifriday (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. To back up @Waggers point above, further definitions of a crisis in both British and American English is: "an unstable or crucial time or state of affairs in which a decisive change is impending / an unstable period, especially one of extreme trouble or danger in politics, economics, etc / a condition of instability or danger, as in social, economic, political, or international affairs, leading to a decisive change / a turning point in the course of anything; decisive or crucial time, stage, or event." Collins Dictionary Merriam-Webster Dictionary Edl-irishboy (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose a PM that does not want to leave, is widely considered a pathological liar, is at war with half of his own party, the opposition is also infighting, there's at least 3 different separatist movements growing in confidence, and the lying, law-breaking and possibly treason within government has been so endemic as to whole system of governance is under scrutiny; that is a crisis by any definition applied. It is a culmination of hundreds of different scandals that are so numerous in fact I cannot possibly begin to list them all, any one of which would cause a crises in any normal government; they haven't and it's come to a head now. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is a government crisis not a crisis PulksteņRādis (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: Agree this is a government crisis, and one that could continue if efforts to remove Johnson from office before the conclusion of the leadership election come to fruition. This is Paul (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose the move as currently proposed, but with a comment: there are currently three pages on the English Wikipedia about this (this one, 2022 British cabinet reshuffle, and 2022 Conservative Party leadership election (UK)). I strongly believe that the leadership election should be a standalone article, but my view is that the other two describe the same sequence of events and should be merged. Andrew11374265 (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support: crisis is probably being a little melodramatic. It ought to be changed but I would be open to suggestion as to what.--Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: It was very clearly a government crisis per most understandings of the term, and more to the point the points of contention were not restricted to simply the wave of resignations themselves but also to the cause and sequelae: Boris Johnson's insistence on remaining in office, and subsequently the manner in which his resignation would proceed (with him remaining as caretaker or stepping down immediately). Renaming to "resignations" would simply be reductive and misleading because they are not the entirety of the crisis. Benjitheijneb (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  It is worth pointing out that in the article you link, the one about government crisis, links to the 2018 2018 British cabinet reshuffle, which is not named as a crisis, despite being referenced on that page. Doesn't have to be titled "Crisis" to accurately describe events, and the fact that you just created your own argument as to why it should be called a Crisis shows that the term "crisis" is subjective. There are resignations, that is the fact. Fbifriday (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  If I meant to link to the articles the article I linked to link to, I would have - but I didn't. I linked quite specifically to government crisis, the definition for which is broad enough to fit the current events well. There are, like I and others have said, more aspects to the events than the resignations alone (the government collapse, negotiation for Johnson's resignation, and subsequent debate over what the transition would be), and a cabinet reshuffle is the restructuring of a cabinet intentionally by the head of government - and these events could only be called that as a euphemism. So neither the proposed title nor a variant on "cabinet reshuffle" would be accurate. "Government crisis" isn't subjective, it's broad, and is therefore the only term suggested which describes the events without over- or underemphasising other aspects (such as the resignations), which would bee subjective and a misapplication of WP:TITLE's "precision" naming criterion. Benjitheijneb (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Once again, your argument is entirely based on your own personal assertion that this fits the definition of a crisis; The fact that we are debating about whether or not this is a crisis means it's a subjective term, and thus, it literally doesn't matter if it fits YOUR definition of a crisis. We don't name articles based off an editor or group of editor's opinions, we base them off reliable sources WP:POVNAMING

  At this point, the only thing that really matters is; The reliable sources calling this a crisis (of which there are absolutely many), are they editorialized, or are they not? I argue they are, for instance, this article from CNN refers to the whole thing as a mutiny within his own party, not as a governmental crisis. I think we can all agree the term "Mutiny" is editorialized, and thus, not encyclopedic, and we must apply the same level of scrutiny to those same sources calling it a crisis. Fbifriday (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  The term government crisis or cabinet crisis wasn't plucked out of thin air for dramatic purpose, it already existed as a set phrase before I showed up, had a definition, moreover had a definition that the current events fit, and has been used to describe other situations with that definition in the past. That you can call me subjective when you're getting too hung up on the word "crisis" to acknowledge the term's precedent is mind-boggling. As you kindly pointed out with the examples found on that same page, there are variations and subtypes thereof (including some examples you've suggested) that still fit the definition; even the proposed "resignations" title would still fit into its Venn diagram, albeit with a narrower scope than it warrants. The existence of a debate is not proof of subjectivity. And where exactly do you get your extremely arbitrary differentiation between editorialised and encyclopaedic sources from? This is nowhere in WP:SOURCE which very clearly lists what you consider "editorialised" sources. It's reliability, not encyclopaedic quality, that forms the basis for deciding titles based on WP:COMMONNAME - which, for that matter, I haven't seen consensus for yet. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, its sources don't have to be, and your personal distinction between what is and is not a reliable source is utterly irrelevant. Benjitheijneb (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not doubting the sources, at all, or their neutrality, because that has nothing to do with this. I'm simply saying that if we use the sources, we must take the information that is factual, while not using their editorial statements that violate WP:NPOV. And since we are talking personal definition of a crisis, let me frame it this way: To me, this is more of a dispute between Boris and his party than a crisis of government, especially considering the fact that he's already agreed to resign, and the "collapse of the government" was...what, two days?...and was resolved largely just by resumption of normal operations under a caretaker government. If your crisis can be resolved within two or three days simply by resuming normal operations, that's not much of a crisis, in my opinion. Fbifriday (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Right, but the terms they attest to use for the events are definite facts in their own right, even if their non-neutral POVs are discarded when relaying information in-article. That those terms themselves may be POV-influenced may affect balance of judgment for how the name fits the five criteria for naming, but aren't an absolute exclusion themselves (nobody excludes Hundred Year War's title under the precision criterion 'cos it was actually 116 years, WP:COMMONNAME can still make a biased term the best candidate on balance). It just happens I think this term meets the other WP:CRITERIA well, accurately describing the events without overspecifying (the events described are resignations and dispute with Boris and caretaker government debate), in addition to arguably-but-not-certainly being common usage too.

  Concerning the rest: I mean, the respective members of the party in dispute with Boris are/were the government, specific ministers fulfilling government roles, and the resignation-replacement-resignation cycle did bring government function to a halt (and I'm not even sure they've resumed as normal? citation needed) for the duration. A duration which, I grant, was a short period of a matter of days, but I haven't found a specified timeframe which does or does not "count" as government crisis, and trying to enforce such a time criterion without precedent would be no less arbitrary (Sweden's 2021 crisis lasted 7 days, and the UK May 1940 crisis for 3-5 days depending on judgment, so this kind of timeframe isn't unheard of). Why would a government crisis be any less a government crisis because it is short-lived (a few days) and historical (now resolved)? Benjitheijneb (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  But that is not what is happening. "is a situation when the government is challenged before the mandate period expires, because it threatens to resign over a proposal, or it is at risk at being dismissed after a motion of no confidence" The government is not being challenged before it's mandate expires. the government has not threatened to 'resign' (the UK Government cannot actually do so based on the fixed-term parliaments act). There has been no motion of no confidence in the government in parliament, nor any indication that one is forthcoming.

  JeffUK (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

*Support Every single argument as to why it should be called a crisis is subjective, not based in fact, and is, in fact, just individual editor's own opinions that the gov't is in crisis. The page as named is hyperbolic. Change to reflect established naming standards for this sort of thing, with 2014 British cabinet reshuffle, 2012 British cabinet reshuffle, 2012 British cabinet reshuffle, etc. The government is not in danger of collapsing, ceasing to end, etc. Fbifriday (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC) Changing my mind FrederalBacon (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Oppose Per my own argument below, I have changed my mind, and now oppose the move. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Last link was wrong, should be 2020 British cabinet reshuffle, I put 2012 on there right. You get the point. Fbifriday (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Comment After reading most of these arguments, I will say again that the editors who are arguing in opposition are clearly letting their own emotions guide their votes. Someone referred to treason, people want to call it "Fall of Boris Johnson", and are claiming that the government is not functioning (Let's make one thing clear. A ministry or department does not fail to function without a responsible minister. It's not like the people responsible for managing visas go home if the Home Secretary resigns, the government still functions). I, as a neutral third party, from a foreign country, who has no real opinion on Johnson, can clearly see the heated emotional arguments, that all fall short of substantive policy arguments. I call on all editors to remember that voting is not discussion, nor is it really even voting at all. Fbifriday (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC) I retract this in whole. While there are some editors who are clearly making emotional arguments, it was wrong of me to assert all arguments were emotional. Fbifriday (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: To directly address comments that this event should be titled inline with cabinet shuffles of years past rather than a "crisis", "cabinet shuffle" implies that the first minister had more or less control over the positions being replaced, possibly triggered by at most a handful of unplanned resignations prior to the reshuffle. This was not at all planned, nor was it limited to a handful of resignations. Her Majesty's Government (a term which refers to the frontbench and not just the whole set of institutions that exist under the Cabinet) had entered a state of collapse for a few hours. At least two departments, Housing (Leveling Up) and Education had no responsible Ministers from the Commons, breaking a vital link of responsible government. The fact it was resolved promptly does not mean that a crisis did not exist for a period of time, however brief. Additionally, referring to this as the "resignation of Boris Johnson" seems to me to be relying too much on past precedent which does not apply in this case, as no previous PM has ever resigned after large swaths of the Government resigned first, a notable and significant event that I would argue deserves to be treated as unique. JustAnotherEditHere (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

We don't write an article based off one nation's perspective. Is this the first time this has happened in the UK? Sure. But Wikipedia is not written with one nation in mind, or from that one nation's perspective. Someone earlier wrote that most of the Supports seem to be coming from outside the UK. There's a reason for that. This is not an unprecedented event in the world. Fbifriday (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

That's like to saying routine governmental corruption in, say, Canada would be no more noteworthy or problematic than in nations where such practices are routine. Plutonium27 (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

In terms of naming articles, yes, that is exactly what I'm saying, and I'd even argue you're lending credence to my claim of this being hyperbolic by going "But it's the UK, it means more than where it happens routinely". Not in terms of creating neutral POV names for articles. Fbifriday (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Due to the extent of the situation and the fact that, as noted above, the sheer number of resignations meant that the Johnson administration was effectively paralyzed and the normal operations of the government were heavily impacted (hence the section titled 'collapse of the government'),the term government crisis definitely seems more appropriate than simply saying 'government resignations.' Willsteve2000 (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: A cursory search of the phrase "2022 United Kingdom government crisis" reveals several uses of the term "crisis" in major news articles referencing Boris Johnson's government specifically. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Also found some crisis sources here. Sahaib (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Willsteve2000. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - There never really is an actual “crisis”. It will most likely be renamed to Resignation of Boris Johnson once everything is done and done. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: A government crisis is an established term, and the scale of the situation extends beyond that of just the resignations. Gunwharf (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It's an established term, it does not apply in this case. The government is not at risk of falling; the prime minister is; but the government continues regardless of who sits in that seat. There has been a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister, NOT in the government. The Prime Minister has resigned, not the government etc. etc. JeffUK (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: The massive number of resignations in such a short amount of time has thrown the United Kingdom into political uncertainty and I think that can be called a crisis. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm happy enough that the article stays where it is for now. Certainly any move would need to be to United Kingdom and not British. But crisis has been used in more than enough RS to be a half-decent title for now at least. Where the article ends up is a different question: I quite like Collapse of the Boris Johnson Premiership, but I imagine it'll end up somewhere else. But not to the title being requested here please. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Support: Use of the term "constitutional crisis" is a term used by political opponents of Boris Johnson to create an air of drama and urgency. As no one broke any constitutional norms or laws, and the military remained loyal to the monarch, use of term "crisis" does not describe reality and threatens to undermine principles kd impartiality and neutrality appropriate for Wikipedia. Blicious (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Response: With all due respect that is a terrible argument. Firstly you could absolutely just make an equally politically charged argument that the Borisists want to whitewash and downplay the scale of the crisis. Secondly so many constitutional and all other norms have been broken so many times, including actual criminality, apart from all the serious sexual crimes, some were breaking criminal laws which they created themselves and only got away with due to political meddling and corruption in the police and judiciary. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Crisis" is being used by reliable sources, so "it's not really a crisis" is not a good argument. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support - "Crisis" is editorialised, but it needs to be 'United Kingdom' not 'British' per 2016_United_Kingdom_shadow_cabinet_resignations JeffUK (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  That article was at June 2016 British shadow cabinet resignations until two days ago. The edit summary for the page move didn't explicitly discuss the change from "British" to "United Kingdom", only the removal of the month. Ham II (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  Good to see it's been corrected! Besides, It's the UK Government. As it happens the 'Shadow Cabinet' in 2016 was entirely British by accident (i.e. there are no NI Members) but the government is the Government_of_the_United_Kingdom and the cabinet members resigned from the Cabinet_of_the_United_Kingdom. "British Government" is a sloppy short-hand.

  JeffUK (talk) 10:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: The effects of this crisis will stretch long throughout 2022 and not just July XxLuckyCxX (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom and others. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support the move away from the current name as it fails WP:COMMONNAME, WP:POVTITLE, and WP:PRECISE as there is no UK government 'crisis'. The only 'crisis', if there is one at all, is within the Conservative Party as they have ousted their leader. Mainstream media do not call it a government crisis, they tend to characterise it as a Johnson leadership challenge. I'd support moving it to something like 2022 Conservative Party leadership challenge. Sure government/Johnson opposition and critics might try to portray it as a government 'crisis' for their own ends, but we should stay neutral and avoid supporting their political agenda. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons described by other editors. This titling is also used consistently on other articles such as 2021 Swedish government crisis and 2020 Malaysian political crisis. Don't see why a UK focused article would be an exception. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  Both of those cases lead to the collapse of the sitting government, which fits with the 'Government crisis' definition; this has not happened in the UK and isn't likely to any time soon. JeffUK (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  It is still described as a government crisis by several reliable sources, and this logic does not apply to War cabinet crisis, May 1940, 2014 Swedish government crisis or 2019 Virginia political crisis. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose A title like Resignation of Boris Johnson might be more appropriate given the fact that we now know the outcome of all of this - something which I didn't when I named the article initially. However I don't think the proposed title sufficiently describes the event. The resignations were part of Johnson's downfall. And as sources have pointed out, this is a sort of "crisis" in Johnson's administration. Not a constitutional crisis, but one in which Johnson is under enormous pressure. Gust Justice (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment Current tally is 46 opposed and 11 support, 3 weak support. Looks like a WP:SNOW in favor of keeping current title to me. I'm not sure another two days discussion is going to change that, and I know we aren't a democracy, but most arguments are based on reliable sources calling it a crisis, which is hard to argue against. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. I haven't seen it shown that this title is the most common title in reliable sources, or even that the word "crisis" is generally used. I'd say something similar to "Conservative Party leadership challenge" is more common. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagree with that assessment, many of the 'Oppose' are Wikipedia:POV saying "It looks like a crisis to me", some are opposing because they think it should have a different name, and many others are 'PERNOM'. JeffUK (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that the opposes are POV. Firstly, a distinction is made between government crisis any other type of crisis, secondly pointing out the scale of the predicament is a valid argument, and besides equally some of the supporting arguments are just as much POV-riddled if not more.Abcmaxx (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The government has not been challenged, resigned, nor at any risk of being dismissed. It is objectively not a Government crisis. Also note that relying on a Wikipedia article that cites no sources is not entirely sensible. JeffUK (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

IDK, you seem to be making a pretty strong argument FOR a crisis there. That article states "the government is challenged before the mandate period expires, because it threatens to resign over a proposal". I'd argue they did threaten to resign (and some did resign) over a proposal, the proposal of another couple years with Johnson as PM. I've argued against it being a crisis so much, but the support for a move is clearly not there, and it's mainly citing reliable sources.

Also, as for the oppose, 3 of the 11 "oppose" openly state they think it's a term that "critics of Johnson" use, and list why they think they are using it (to make Johnson look bad). Only 1 of the 11 offers a policy argument (that doesn't also raise NPOV issues by clearly being in favor of Johnson), and that's mine, and I just withdrew it, based off of my own argument here. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The resignation of people in the government is not the same as the government itself resigning. The distinction is that the conservative party have not risked losing control of the government. Therefore it's not a government crisis. It's a conservative party leadership crisis if anything JeffUK (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

And the conservative party is in charge of the Government, right? Like, they hold an absolute majority, they have all the senior government positions....so....if the conservative party has a crisis that risked them losing control of the Government, wouldn't you argue that the gov't in charge had a crisis? FrederalBacon (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

"if the conservative party has a crisis that risked them losing control of the Government", I would agree it's a government crisis. But this has not risked them losing control of the government, they still hold a majority in parliament If all those MPs had resigned from the party, rather than from their ministerial positions, it would be a government crisis, but they have not. If they elect Larry the Cat as leader and he fills the cabinet with dead mice they are still the government. JeffUK (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'll go back to the core of this issue: Reliable sourcing. The article name is what the subject is called in RS. The only thing that really matters is if that name is editorialized. While I am fairly certain it is, there is clear evidence that the consensus is not with me. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Very few sources have been provided that call it a 'Government Crisis' which is a very specific term that has a very specific meaning. It may be referred to as 'A crisis' but it's not a 'Government crisis'. Al Jazeera is the only one on this talk page and that's hardly a reliable source for UK politics. JeffUK (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

One of the three Al Jazeera English headquarters is in the UK, but sure, they're not a reliable source for UK politics. FrederalBacon (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

:Oppose As per User:Arcahaeoindris above. I also note that this is consistent with my country’s news media reporting on the issue. OJH (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.