Talk:Boriswave

Seriously?

I don't think a single article in The Telegraph and some kunley_drukpa-adjacent Twitter chatter makes this term a thing. Immigration to the United Kingdom is a totally decent article that does everything this page does, except sans the snazzy Twitter terminology...and if you're unhappy with it, then just edit that article. Theodore Christopher (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Quite agree. The article should be deleted. John Smith's (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Reputable sites I found using the terminology:

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/19/britain-must-kick-its-addiction-to-migration-led-growth/

https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/12/sam-bidwell-the-immigration-slow-motion-car-crash-that-is-coming-and-how-to-stop-it/

I think it's entering the lexicon. Maybe the renaming of the 'Brexit and COVID' section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom to 'Boriswave' would be better? 2A02:C7C:7CCC:7A00:C862:50D2:90F7:AD5E (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm sure the intent is to help drive it into the lexicon via things like this page. John Smith's (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

These are basically the only three reputable sources that include the word. With all due respect to Max Tempers, you can't just invent a phrase from whole cloth, make a Wikipedia article for it, and then say "omg this is spreading". Maybe give it a few months, see if it catches on. None of the info in this article seems to be overtly wrong, it's just that the phrase isn't relevant. Theodore Christopher (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC) Theodore Christopher (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

If the article isn't deleted then it can be renamed. After all, the "wave" didn't end after Boris Johnson left office. John Smith's (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Whilst I don’t think this phrase yet merits a Wikipedia article (I expect it will in the future), I can’t help but sense from your use of quotation marks there that you have biases in your commenting here, @John Smith's. EPEAviator (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

>> The "wave" didn't end after Boris Johnson left office

Didn't Keir Starmer publish a white paper on this, calling it an "open borders experiment", and tried to cut it in half?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/28/uk-deal-iraq-people-smugglers-europe 2A0A:EF40:1558:7C01:2C66:338D:9650:1FAF (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

Per notice on the front page. . John Smith's (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

New version

I have created a new version of this article that discusses the Boriswave as a political term, rather than as the surge in immigration itself. I feel that there are significant reliable sources that discuss the Boriswave (see the results in Google News and Google Scholar) to warrant a standalone article, but I'm happy to discuss further. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The term "Boriswave" now has several WP:SIGCOV pieces in WP:RS/P sources such as: The Guardian, Spectator, The Telegraph (amongst others). Aszx5000 (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Whilst I am happy with the return of the article, I believe that its current structure is exremely biased.

The article only discusses the origin of the term Boriswave and nothing about the Boriswave itself, having it be like this is the same as if the article for "Chicken" contained only the etymology of the term and not what a Chicken actually is. A truly unbiased article on this matter would contain facts and figures about the amount of immigration that the UK experienced during Boris Johnsons' government. ~2026-31022-40 (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I beleive the previous version of the article was like that but it got deleted at AFD hence this new version focuses on the term. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 17:01, 29 May 2026 (UTC)