Talk:Boris Johnson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Mayor

It says he is the mayor - This is not yet the case. --James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.175.27 (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments made by Lindafash

it was not Boris who said that the Jewish evening standard reporter was "like a concentration camp guard". It was Ken Livingston, who then refused to apologise even when the reporter told Ken, not Boris, that he was Jewish and was offended. Lindafash (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Just spotted some mischief on the page. I could be wrong, but I don't think he's ever been a banana harvester? Bandana, perhaps... Or played alongside Ken Livingstone for Tajikistan. Could someone revert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.228.106.135 (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted this blatant vandalism twice now, and issued the appropriate warning. If it returns just revert on sight. DWaterson 11:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wig

The picture caption describes Boris Johnson as recognisable for his blonde hair, however the word 'hair' is innacurate, seeing as he is bald and wears a wig. Someone may wish to follow this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.56.216 (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What nonsense. What proof do you have that he wears a wig? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casdious (talk • contribs) 12:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

GQ

No mention of Boris' current lighthearted monthly column reviewing cars for British GQ magazine. He also does occasional other media work for the publication.

Image

I’ve inserted a new image to satisfy the request that the former fair use image should be replaced with a freely licensable one. I contacted Boris Johnson’s e-mail address to receive, as I said in my e-mail, a freely licensable picture of yourself for use on Wikipedia. I received the simple response (from Melissa Crawshay-Williams Private Sec to Boris Johnson MP, copied and pasted from e-mail), yes sure, and an e-mail attached image - Image:BorisJohnsonemail.jpg. I presume that the wording of the e-mail allows this image to be considered freely licensable, but I’m not sure. Could somebody help me here? Thanks. Miller 22:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

From what I recall of my journalism training the UK law is that as long as you have consent from the person who owns the photo (the photographer) and, if a commercial photograph, the person who commissioned it, you are free to use the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.56.216 (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Spelling query

The article mentions "an editorial criticizing the trend to mawkish sentimentality by the public." I'm not completely on top of American and British English differences, but shouldn't that be "criticising"? JamesMLane 12:06, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes. It's a miracle if I spell anything right :) I've changed the article. - John Fader

Just a note on this - actually -ize is the ending preferred by the OED (although of course it lists both), but most other British dictionaries prefer -ise. I go with -ise out of habit. Americans always go with -ize. It's one of those things it's hard to be hawkish about. Matve 15:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

We do have this loopy standard by which one uses British style for a British topic in the encyclopedia. It would be better if there were a single style, e.g. American.

It's nice to know it's a 'loopy style'. It does have functional advantages (that is, so the Britons of us don't have to go around thinking about how the Americans spell, or lack thereof) and it also makes sense that British articles would be in English (though I'm always happy to have things in Cornish, Scots, Scots Gaelic, Welsh, or Irish). But the sentiment is truly enlightened, I must say Roche-Kerr 07:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Speculation?

I have deleted the following, which seems at best speculative. I think it should only be restored if some sources can be provided.

"It seems likely, however, that antipathy amongst certain Tory MPs for Johnson and his high public profile, which often eclipsed that of his party's leader, heavily contributed to his dismissal."

Yes, I think that the sentence, as written, assumes as fact matters not in evidence. I have heard similar thoughts before, but indeed such strong statements need evidence. - John Fader

Bicycle

Enjoyable profile, but one endearing aspect of Boris is missing: he is an urban cyclist! --François Brutsch 08:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

He was coming past and so I added a picture of him and his bike. Its not a very good picture but better than nothing. Justinc 23:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Boris Johnson did not have an affair with Petronella Wyatt and I personally feel it to be an insult to him when this article refers to him as lying about the affair. There was no affair, just attention seeking by certain people and lesser beings trying to bring Boris down. He did not lie and for this article to claim he did shows how opinions are morphed into facts by the media.-A SOURCE

Does 'Bicycle' in the heading here refer to Petronella then? 81.157.125.245 (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

New book?

and he is currently working on a book about what it means to be British, due for publication in 2005. Is that so? Or is it a reference to The New British Revolution? Andy Mabbett 18:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Latest Book

How the Romans Ran Europe (Fourth Estate, advertised as due March 2006) Fourth Estate is an imprint of Harper Collins (owned by NewsCorp) Dean - Mar05, 2006

Edinburgh University Rector elections

I might be missing something here, I confess, but: who really cares how he did in some stupid university election? Especially since he lost? In the grander scheme of things, it's hardly going to rate a big mention is it? There is barely any mention of any single parliamentary election he has ever stood in, so what makes this one so special? ElectricRay 23:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The edit has been reverted more than 3 times, so should there be a request for arbitration on the matter? In my opinion, the election is completely trivial, all-but forgotten about by now, and not deserving of a pretty lengthy entry on this page. Especially the voting statistics - these are not encyclopaedic. The addition of the text appears to be politically-motivated and in bad faith. DWaterson 00:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete the thing then, don't stand around talking about it. The editor in question has been making POV edits to a number of Conservative party MP's articles. Jefffire 09:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok then! Whooshka! GONE! ElectricRay 11:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like our student activist is back. Be ready to revert. Jefffire 15:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, don't ride the "edit war" bus. If someone's childish enough to revert, I'm adult enough to think, "Life's to short: I'm going to the pub". Well, that's what I tell my self, anyway. ElectricRay 17:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Wise council. That's exactly what I did. ;) Jefffire 20:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not a student activist, and if you check my IP address, you will see I am in the US. I don't see the logic in continually deleting it, saying it is excessive and trivial while leaving things in like HIGNFY, what frat club he was a member of at Oxford and particularly the recently added info about a charity soccer match which contains an exceedingly tedious minute by minute account which has little to do with Johnson's life and work. The reasons why I feel the Edinburgh election should be included is because it is a relatively recent event, it is directly relevant to Johnson's current job in the Shadow cabinet and it reveals a very insightful, relevant and interesting account of his behavior, political stance and personality. I heard about the University election in the British press soon after it happened and I simply can't understand why it shouldn't be included in here just because a small number of people arrogantly assume no one reading this would be interested. Edinburgh is one of the UK's most prestiguous schools and Johnson currently formulates policies that would affect millions of students attending UK institutions. If you feel there's hardly anything about national election here, why not do some research and include information on Johnson's action during them too? Standing for elections is what politicians do and just because Johnson did so at one of the UK's largest Universities doesn't mean it is not worth describing here.

As for the jibe about edits to other MPs' pages, I've made changes to the pages about MPs of all parties, yet it seems to be the Conservative ones that objections are raised when something remotely critical is left about them. The David Cameron article is the prime example: it is considered POV to point out it was the shortest Budget response in history (which I heard on the BBC, an news source legally obliged to be impartial) yet the apparently self-appointed moderators on here think it's perfectly fair and balanced to say the misbehavior was all done by representatives of only one party when it is clear from the video of the speech that is impossible to tell exacly which group of MPs are making the noise. The nature of the House of Commons is the noise and rowdiness comes from all sides no matter the occasion.

I believe all politicians should be held to account and it's only fair on them and the public to give as full an account as possible of their actions on Wikipedia and elsewhere.

we could debate long into the night on the significance of this, but for my part your inference that the result of some studfent election has some deeper implication for the community view of Boris Johnson, thereby giving it special notoriety, is clearly original research. If you can adduce some evidence (perhaps a national newspaper saying this, or somehing) it might be different. In any case, here's a compromise: I've removed the section, and made a very brief mention of the electoral result under "politics". Given the weighting of the rest of the article the remainder really isn't that interesting vis-a-vis Boris specifically (or, frankly, at all - but I defer to your concerns), so I have included that under the entry for the Rectorial Elections. There is a link from this article so anyone who really feels the need can go look there.

As for the footie match and HIGNFY - whether you think these are worthy of or justify notability is beside the point: they are important reasons for notability, being events fo the type that, in large part, what makes BJ the notable figure he is (failing the Rectorial Elections really isn't), and they are thus worthy of inclusion. ElectricRay 09:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The material in the Rector election section is far from Original Research. If you look at it, you will notice that the assertions in it are backed up with linked references. It is not "some student election", it was at Edinburgh University, the largest University in Scotland and one of the largest in the UK with 24,000 UK and international students, many of whom come from the Conservative heartlands of the south of England and has a world wide reputation. It was not just the students who voted in the rectorial election, the university staff can too, from the cleaners to heads of academic departments. It was a result of Boris' notable status that he was invited and nominated to stand in the election and the events described are consistent with what is described else where on this page. If he had not appeared on HIGNFY or the charity match, he would still have his 'lovable buffoon' reputation and his conduct during the rector election fits in with this reputation and as such, is worthy of description on his biog page on Wikipedia.

Not notable. Delete. Especially given the level of completly irrelevent information. It is not relevent what position the student council take, nor what voting system was used.Jefffire 13:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, we need to stop this edit war immediately. The reversions are now totally in breach of the three revert rule, so we need to enter some sort of dispute resolution. Negotiation on this talk page clearly has not achieved consensus, evidenced by the ongoing dispute, so I suggest the first thing is to take a straw poll to see if we can reach agreement by voting which everyone will abide by. Policy says we must reach a consensus first on the nature of the question; how about: "Dispute regarding insertion of text regarding Edinburgh University Rector election. Consensus sought as to whether the text in question is appropriate for inclusion in the article." Alternatively, mediation might be required. DWaterson 21:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

er, not wishing to be pedantic, but I don't think anyone is in breach of the three revert rule. That requires one user to revert three times in a single 24 hour period. I don't think that's happened. In any case, personally, I'm bored with the argument, which is characterised by the usual immaturity and petulance (from everyone except me :)) - I think all the perspectives have come out on the talk page, so someone important ought to be able to read the discussion and say "you're right, that is totally non-notable, delete. Or maybe we just put it to a vote or something? Or perhaps those who really do give a flying crap about whether or not BoJo contested or lost the stupid election can just keep reverting each other periodically. It's not really doing any harm, and it's probably just helping to work out some much needed testosterone in the student common rooms up there in Edinburgh. ElectricRay 23:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No 3rr rule violation because anonymous has resorted to sock puppets. I think we need an administrator to comment on this as anonymous will clearly not give up no matter what the consensus is. Jefffire 07:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll take out the section one more time. If anonymous continues their crusade I'll file an RfC. Jefffire 08:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This ridiculous revert war is still ongoing, so I suggest we need to go ahead with some form of dispute resolution. DWaterson 12:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Short of a permanent semi-protection there really isn't anything we can do. A lone anonymous editor who switchs IP addresses to make occassion major edits against the consensus due to their political beliefs is unlikely to stop. This isn't a major problem, so unless it becomes a nuisance I suggest we wait it out. Jefffire 12:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A few words in favour of keeping the section on the rectorial elections. This is considered notable in the UK and is covered by the national press. Previous rectors have included, for example, Gladstone, Kitchener and Churchill. The election is probably one of the most democratic in the UK: anyone can be nominated (except for matriculated students or staff of the University) and all the staff and students can vote. The person stands as themself, not as a representative of a political party. I am quite sure Johnson whould have taken it as much more of a personal accolade if he had won that election than he did on being elected as the tory MP for Henley (where the populace would elect a donkey, if it was a Conservative). He took the campaign seriously (or at least his own eccentric version of seriousness) - see, for example, the boris4rector.com website. I'm not planning on editing the article either way but I would argue strongly in favour of keeping the section. Bluewave 08:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous was trying to insert a massive section on the subject, with many irrelevent tangents. I have no objection to a shortened version without the tangents. Jefffire 10:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Insofar as the article goes on at length about Have I Got News For You, the rectorship surely must be significant; more than the TV programme. It is surely POV to suggest that a public event in a public person's life is insignificant. The onus should be on those who would suppress a fact. Wikipedia is seldom reluctant to carry trivia, e.g. long articles about computer-games which read as though they described reality and information about rock-music albums as though they were great art.

Having read the above and reflected upon it two years later, certain things are apparent:

1. There appears to have been a zealous effort by the 'moderators' to prevent details of the rector election at Edinburgh being included in the article by using work-to-rule tactics. I'm unclear on what authority the opinion of these users has precedence over other users. My own less extensive edits today appear to be being subjected to the same treatment as those of the anonymous user two years ago. My own opinion is that as Johnson was higher education spokesman for the Tories at the time, it is perfectly relevant and pertinent to include some detail about the election that's consistent with other facts about Johnson included elsewhere in the article.

2. Little or no effort was made to address most of the arguments the anonymous user spelt out above. The 'moderators' appear to have adopted a "because we say so" attitude. It is true that the detail and length originally written was excessive for the article as it then was but my own edits today are very limited and appear to have revealed a certain intolerance to matters connected with this event being included, even although it is still given its own sub-heading within the article; apparently giving it the same status as his candidacy for London Mayor.

3. The pre-existing draft of the subsection on the rector election consists of one sentence describing the result with no context or background included and another sentence about something done several months after the election and not directly related to it. I don't fully understand the vociferous objection to expanding on it with something more relevant to the subsection heading.

4. As for reliability of the student newspaper source, the Edinburgh Student was founded in 1887 and is the campus newspaper of one of the UK's most reputable and widely known universities. Several journalists who rose to prominence in the national press started their careers on it when at Edinburgh University, I can think of some who now work for the Scotsman and the Herald (Scottish quality newspapers; 'High-end sources'; for those of you who don't know). As I said in the edit comment, there is no basis to question the accuracy of what was reported. I don't consider that the references I cited were from the internet archive as good reason not to include it. Surely it is not in dispute that these articles did appear on the internet and in print on Edinburgh University Campus at the time of the election? More importantly, surely it is not disputed that what was reported is in fact wholly true? Finally, as the newspaper is based at Edinburgh University, I wonder if anyone can name a source better placed to reliably and accurately report an election campaign that was targeted at the students and staff of Edinburgh University?

Saying that the website is currently offline and that the student newspaper is not a 'reliable source' are not reasons at all for deleting it.

I rest my case.

B626mrk (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't propose to get into a long dispute about this because it's incredibly uninteresting, but from my perspective: 1. It already was mentioned in the article, in a short one-sentence version which consensus had found was sufficient and adequate to describe this fairly minor and trivial event; 2. My reversion was based on Wikipedia policy for reliable sources and no other; 3. Long-standing consensus has been that this was sufficient; 4. None of that necessarily makes it a reliable source because it is effectively self-published, which is inappropriate for a biography of a living person. Being from the Internet Archive is absolutely fine by my interpretation of policy. Being offline is not a reason to delete it; being an unreliable source certainly is. DWaterson (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I won't dispute the articles didn't exist it's hardly likely that a voice of the student body is an independent reporter of the actions of that body. It's like quoting the labour party fliers you get through the door which says that your local MP caused X, Y & Z. In my view the paper would be biased; it's an internal voice rather than an independent source; and it's assumption rather than fact. There's no real way to prove that the actions quoted had the effect attributed to them. A better source? An independent local newspaper perhaps? It strikes me it's a fringe source, under Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. It is most certainly not a mainstream news organisation. --Blowdart | ^talk 20:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ironic that you should say that when so many supposedly reliable sources openly have a political bias, i.e. the Left Guardian, the right wing Telegraph etc. I'm a graduate of Edinburgh University and I know the nature of the student newspaper and you can take it from me that it wouldn't inaccurately report that actions of a national politician when he comes to the campus. As DWaterson has so dogmatically said in the past, the election campaign was of little interest in the media outside the campus so I think it's perfectly adequate, appropriate and reliable to use it as a source in this context.

I'm happy to accept the compromise that's been suggested in the most recent edit by MickMacNee (talk).B626mrk (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've completely changed it now, with reliable sources, but I have to say it's incredible that you can say a student newspaper would be a worse source than a local paper, when in fact the readership at EU for the student paper is larger than many local papers in the UK. I thinks it's clear no-one wikilawyering in this section had any interest in sourcing, as it took me 2 minutes to find the two national sources that confirm everything that's been reverted many times for lack of sources. MickMacNee (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Early Life

Is the information about his ancestory accurate? Jefffire 12:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes he has noted it in editorials and the like for some time. He is often attacked on it because of the whole asylum/immigration and the Coservative parties attempts to work out an angle on it (i.e. Boris doesn't support immigration, but if it were not for it he wouldn't be here etc etc). This is (possibly) why he supports asylum (at least) so strongly. Pydos 08:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a better cite than mentions in newspaper articles? It's been deleted from Stanley Johnson. Apparently it's mentioned in the new biography of Boris going by this review which would make a better citation if anyone could confirm this --Sully 00:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced passage: Scotland

I've pulled the following passage from the Politics section:

On November 7 2006, he was three times refused the opportunity to speak in the House of Commons during a debate on Scottish affairs (where he was sitting as a Conservative back bencher), before he walked out in disgust.

Reasoning:

1. There's no independent report of this event, suggesting that it is not notable.
2. There was no debate on Scottish affairs on that day (source: They Work For You) There were Scottish Questions, a difference great enough to require correction.
3. The lead paragraph states that Johnson is a frontbencher. Were this paragraph to return, it would be necessary to resolve the contradiction.
4. "Walked out in disgust" appears to give a point of view.

I welcome rationales to restore this passage. Eludium-q36 09:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced passage: Popularity

The entire "popularity" section needs to be either buttressed with some sources, edited, or deleted. As it stands, it just reads like a pitiful "youth outreach" advert for Johnson's mayoral campaign. --24.250.100.179 17:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

'Unfounded Criticism on race issues' section

This section is incredibly biased sounding, it practically sounds as if it was written by Boris' London Mayoral campaign team. Even the very title 'unfounded criticism' is biased, who are we to say what criticism is and isn't founded. --CTerry 19:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

it does keep getting reverted between various versions, just keep an eye on it. 84.9.39.93 20:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I will continue to watch it. ABdePJ's response has been quoted, that will do. It is not for us to take his side or that of his critics. See WP:NPOV. Viewfinder 23:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone says "X is racist" and uses false evidence to prove their point, and X replies "I am not racist" and offers an explanation for the evidence advanced by the accuser, surely it is for the accuser to make the case watertight and not for them to keep repeating the accusation ad nauseam? The comment about why the article is written is germane to the accusation, it's constant deletion can only be politically-motivated. What other motive can there be for denying people the ability to read it? Labelling someone a racist is a common political tactic often used to discredit opponents and shut down debate. Wikipedia should not allow the accusation to go undefended or the 'evidence' to go unchallenged.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.152.38.130 (talk • contribs)

That Johnson has been criticised on the race issue has been widely reported by reliable sources, as the article citations show. If he cares to issue a further response, and, say, the Daily Telegraph report that response, then Wikipedia will quote his response with the appropriate citation. Wikipedia is not in the business of pushing the points of view of individual editors, especially accusations by editors of libel. Viewfinder 09:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it any wonder that Wikipedia is accused of a constant pernicious leftist bias?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.152.38.130 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts using four tildes.

With all due respect, Wikipedia is accurately reporting the accusations and accurately reporting Johnson's responses, from a neutral point of view and citing reliable sources. If you don't like Wikipedia, then I recommend Conservapedia. Viewfinder 09:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The article as currently edited by 90.152.38.130 is better than his previous versions, in that he is attributing some of his material to partial sources instead of Wikipedia itself, but I am still not happy about the words "politically motivated" and "accurately" which seem to me to be POV. Also the sources are blogs. But other editors must decide about that, if I delete further material by 90.152.38.130 I may be in breach of WP:3RR. Viewfinder 10:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The sources may be blogs, but they are the best you can do. The James Cleverly criticism of Doreen Lawrence is the criticism of a black Londoner standing for political office under the Conservative Party banner, a valid addition given her blanket assertion of speaking for the 'black community'. He published his own comment, it is a primary source (unlike the Guardian article which merely quotes Doreen Lawrence in reported speech). Unfortunately the Evening Standard has not published the Andrew Gilligan article online, but Iain Dale's blog has. If you conceded that Gilligan's comments are useful contributions then it's the only way to get them there!

90.152.38.130

Point taken about the blogs. But the words "politically motivated" are and "accurately" are POV, we should not be taking a partial position on the accuracy of Johnson's response. I suggest deleting "accurately" and changing the heading to a neutral "Race issue controversy". I hope this is OK. Viewfinder 19:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This still reads pretty like a hagiography. We all love Boris, but you don't need to headline it "controversial", or carefully rebutt the criticisms, it's just a little OTT. 87.74.14.3 18:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone adequately explain why the views of a prominent black londoner (Tory A list candidate, candidate for GLA and former mayoral candidate in Hackney), not views reported through the prism of The Guardian I admit but an actual primary source he wrote himself, specifically one who rejects Doreen Lawrence's blanket assumption that she speaks for all the 'black community' keep being deleted? Surely this can't be more anti-Johnson bias can it?

BLP and UNDUE

I’m not sure what ‘truth’ is being referred to here, but I have no knowledge of this issue, and my only concern is making certain that Wikipedia article content follows Policy, which this entry clearly doesn’t. With the quotations from a tabloid being highlighted not only by being separated from the text, but encompassed by the large blue quotation marks, it clearly violates WP:UNDUE, especially when applied to a WP:BLP. Since the content is sourced, it can be included, but due to the potential for libel, it needs to be clearly attributed to the source. Dreadstar † 20:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There is some content in this article that concerns me, hopefully an editor more familiar with the subject can address any WP:BLP issues along the lines of Jimbo's statement: "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." As well as "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP)s must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." Dreadstar † 03:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian is not a tabloid, but a serious newspaper, in publication for approaching two centuries. Why describe it as a tabloid? The Toynbee article appears also to have been first published in paper format in the paper, not on its online presence Guardian Unlimited. — BillC ^talk 05:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I specified The Guardian or the Guardian Unlimited or any other paper. There were several "newspapers" mentioned in the edits I changed; and the comments as originally stated in this article were certainly at the level of tabloid journalism. I have struck the entire "tabloid" remark from my text above. My apologies if I broad-stroked any legitimate, serious newspapers with my statement - that was never my intention. In any case, this is a side-issue of the larger problem with the way it was originally incorporated into the article - sourced from a serious paper or not, it clearly violated WP:UNDUE by being set apart, and further highlighted by the big blue quotation marks. It's fine now. Dreadstar † 06:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify even further, my second post above is more about the article as a whole, not just the section I edited. There are several newspaper references in the citations, as well as a comment in the WP:LEAD section about what "the UK tabloid press" calls him. My request for an "editor more familiar with the subject can address any WP:BLP issues along the lines of Jimbo's statement: "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism," was meant to address the entire contents of the article, not any single newspaper mentioned therein. Dreadstar † 07:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversies

This section seems to be growing inexorably and is approaching half the length of the article. While Johnson is a controversial politician, and there is no shortage of quotations stemming from him, much of the material in this section adds little insight into its subject. I have removed the section about his website going down. There is no doubt about the verifiability of the source attributing his comment on the matter; however it promotes no understanding of Johnson himself: plenty of people have grumbled when their website briefly becomes unavailable. I encourage others to take a look at this section too, be bold and remove superfluous material and try to focus on the biography here. — BillC ^talk 22:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger comment - unsourced statement

Boris was heard later in November 2007 on Capital Radio remarking on the irony of having his diction criticised by Arnold.

(Arnold does, of course, have the excuse that English isn't his first language. Wonder what Boris's is? ;-) ) 217.155.20.163 (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The section provides no interesting or useful information, I recommend deleting the "Arnold Schwarzenegger comment" lines altogether. - Faltenin (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, for the same reasons I removed the preceding section. — BillC ^talk 17:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It serves to describe the personalty of the person oh censors. --IceHunter (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

American?

He was born in New York so assuming his parents weren't diplomats at the time, isn't he also an American citizen? JAJ (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That's mentioned (unless someone changed it since the last time I looked) under "Citizenship" in the infobox. His father WAS a diplomat of some kind, I think, and he "renounced" his American citizenship after being annoyed at an airport while on vacation. There's a link in the article. Bangdrum (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

His father was not diplomat but was working for the World Bank at the time, a ranty article by itself doesn't cut it as enough to "renounce" his US citizenship, it requires a declaration at a US embassy so the article is wrong by stating his nationality as "formerly American" unless there's any evidence he has formerly renounced his citizenship as certified by a US embassy (which I'm certainly not aware of), unless someone can find such a reference I'll edit this.--Sully (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew about the renunciation rule (that's why I put it in quotes). I didn't know what his father was doing, I thought it was something diplomatic. Anyway, as far as the US citizenship, I'd agree with an edit on that. Bangdrum (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had to re-add this since his American citizenship was removed as unsourced. If he was born in New York he is an American citizen by birth *unless* he's renounced his citizenship as stipulated in Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship, it's inherently sourced by the fact he was born in New York and I can't see how it requires a separate citation or we need a citation to logically prove a negative.--Sully (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been reverted as acquiring US Ctizenship through being born in the United States needs to be cited to prove this isn't vandalism, as the Wikipedia article Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States_of_America on the subject is WP:OR--Sully (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article itself isn't original research (OR), applying the content of it to this article is. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that his oath to the Queen on becoming an MP would effectively rule him out from maintaining US citizenship http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.107.199 (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Only as the page says if by doing so your intention is to lose your US citizenship by doing so, if that's not your intent and you've not been issued with a certificate you're still treated as a US citizen including the requirement to travel to/from the US on a US passport which Boris has written a rant about.--Sully (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

After reading the above US Department of State web site, it would seem that the "taking of a policy making" job in a foreign government would be the operative clause. However the web site said that a US Consular official has to launch the action/investigation. Unless Boris does so himself. It's not automatic. --TGC55 (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Should the intro to the article say "American born British Conservative Party poltician" in the style of many other pages? Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly in the post-election "life of Boris" piece by the BBC [1] it states "was born in New York to English parents in 1964 and was, until recently, an American citizen.", this has not been reported anywhere else other than this article and I'm surprised that something about Boris wouldn't reported more widely, the media seem to report pretty much anything else and have been picking his background to bits during the election. That would still make him American born though so this wording is certainly appropiate whether the BBC are right or not--Sully (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Philip Stevens at 11:22 UTC, 4 May 2008 edited the article page to indicate that Boris is no longer a US citizen citing this web page from The Oxford Times [2], so it seems that Boris has renounced his US citizenship. Wonder how he settled the taxes on his lifetime world-wide income with the US Internal Revenue Service? That's something we'll never know.--TGC55 (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like an article repeating Boris's article in the Spectator "That's it Uncle Sam I quit!" where he wrote a piece stating paraphrased "I hope this article is proof enough of loss of citizenship", the danger is it's essentially citing sources who may not have the slightest clue what they're on about, anything which is solely basing this on Boris' piece (or articles directly repeating it) I don't feel are quite reliable enough without something corroborating it--Sully (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

User Sully appears to be correct that a Boris self written article in the The Spectator and a reporting of the gist of it in the Oxford Times[3] would be insufficient to determine if Boris actually still has a legal status as a US citizen. The issue is somewhat of a red herring though unless -- Boris makes or appears to make official London mayoral decisions based on his present or past American citizenship or because he was born in the US -- it doesn't make much difference. I do agree with ALL your logic in this "American?" talk section, it's just that I can't see where the issue is headed unless Boris exhibits conflict of interests or dual loyalties regarding his execution of duties in the mayor's office. I suggest that there should be an entry in the "Controversies" section about his citizenship. I don't think that there is any question that he is "American-born" and that should be included in the article. --TGC55 (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sully, is this the article that you were talking about on www.boris-johnson.com, [4], titled American Passport, dated 29 August 2006. Not much of a legal renounciation, is it?--TGC55 (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Stuart Collier

The section on 'Stuart Collyer' appears to be sourced to someone's blog and to an attack document published by a left-wing pressure group. In fact, the name is 'Stuart Collier', which perhaps gives some indication of how reliable this section is. I have removed this, because the only half-way decent source is a book which I do not have access to to see exactly what it says. I would suggest someone restore it, but sourcing to reliable sources, NOT self-published blogs, and left-wing pressure groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.164.67 (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Social Affairs Unit article cited and 'Collier' correction. Are you part of the quaffed ones campaign team? Philip Cross (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Have also moved this sub-section to the start of the 'Controversies' section, as it is chronologically the first issue which was raised about Johnson. It cannot therefore be considered a POV issue. Philip Cross (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make unfounded conflicyt of interest accusations, one could equally ask if you were part of the reptilian one's campaign team. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. Philip Cross (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Way too much alleged controversy and a general sense of unease about this article have led me to tag it for POV. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you didn't similarly tag the Ken Livingstone article, which similarly contains way too much alleged controversy and gives one a general sense of unease about the motives of some of its editors. 92.11.122.12 (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not so much "alleged" as outbursts and misbehaviour from Johnson which can be demonstrated as factually based. Unfortunately, for Johnson and his supporters the incidents which present him in a relatively good light (HIGNFY) are trivial. Philip Cross (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that your incredible bias makes it unwise for you to edit this page. Mr. Johnson is a popular public figure who has a bigger personal following than pretty much any other UK politician. He is, moreover, according to most polls, the leading candidate for Mayor of London. I would suggest that you spend a little less time accusing people of being on his campaign time, and perhaps a little more time on other matters where you can be less partisan. 82.31.164.67 (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Incredible bias" on the basis on one breach of good faith? A "popular public figure who has a bigger personal following than pretty much any other UK politician" is a tendentious comment and does not mean criticisms of Johnson should be absent from this article when it made by reputable figures. I might add that I chose not to restore Polly Toynbee's possibly damaging description of Johnson as a "clown" after it was removed because I did not wish to be embroiled in conflict with other editors. Actually comments from Johnson's critics are somewhat absent from the article, so I do not think I have behaved with "incredible bias". I regret the comment in the Collier section. If I was adding 'original research' to this article you would be right to criticise me. Philip Cross (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well right now with references being added with false titles ("Black MPs" as opposed to "Labour Black MPs") and references to a web page on the guardian about homophobia that didn't actually exist it does smell at bit. --Blowdart | ^talk 01:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The pages unavailability on The Guardian's website does mean Johnson's comment is falsely attributed. A reference on the Pink News website indicates the source more precisely than the earlier vague wording did. Philip Cross (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The article does appear to exist, it's just that the URL was malformed; it's actually located here. However, as it's an article about that Compass "dossier", IMO it's probably a bit unbalanced as a source, given that this article already states its accuracy has been challenged. DWaterson (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The citation I made from the Pink News website predates the Compass report. Philip Cross (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good work. DWaterson (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This large part of the article is a reflection of the fact Boris suffers from "Foot in Mouth" syndrome to a greater extent than most other politicians and journalists. It's interesting the use of the word "alleged", pretty much all of this section is well sourced from (multiple) reputable sources. I would say this section isn't ideal since it's too long and could be improved by combining a number of these in the interests of style echoing an earlier comment in the section above but this doesn't mean it's not NPOV --Sully (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

BAFTA

I was surprised to see it wasn't in this article, so I added that Boris was nominated for a tv BAFTA for his performance on Have I got News for you in 2004 (for 2003 appearance). I think it says a lot abou the impact of his appearance on the show. Imagine if he'd won it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.51.61.74 (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Heffer and Worsthorne comments

The articles yesterday by Simon Heffer and Peregrine Worsthorne against a candidate of not dissimilar stripe to themselves is surely worth noting because it is rare to be antagonistic to one's own side on election day, and in the Worsthorne case may be prophetic. I chose to reinstate it. Philip Cross (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone attempted to condense this passage on the grounds that these comments are easily accessible from this page. Quite true, but passing references are not always appropriate when authorities comments are more than solely dismissive and are critical also. It is usual for Wikipedia editors to give more than the barest precis even where articles are readily available, and my quotes may save people from feeling the need to read the Heffer and Worsrthorne articles in full, which perhaps Johnson's admirers might not want. I also did not see the point of the comment "most left-wing commentators" supported Livingstone when he has become controversial on the left also, no matter how one might define that term. This is an article about Boris Johnson. Philip Cross (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Elected 1st May?

Although votes were cast on the 1st May he wasnt formally elected until close to mid-night on the 2nd May 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.5.26 (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

MP and Mayor?

Must he step down as MP after his election as London Mayor? --Vladko (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no "must" to it, though he probably will due to time constraints, etc. George The Dragon (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

On an interview with Sky News just now he stated he will resign and a by-election will be held. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, he'll apply to either the position of Steward and Bailiff of the Three Hundreds of Chiltern or the Steward and Deputy Steward of the Manor of Northstead as an MP can't technically resign, but...! Oh, and unless anyone else has left the Commons since Tony Blair, it will be the latter as they alternate and Blair left via the former George The Dragon (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Mayor-elect or mayor?

Is there some formal act of inauguration of a new mayor, and if so when does that happen? The Mayor of London article asserts that Boris is already mayor - he may not physically walk into the office until next week, but that's immaterial to his status as mayor. In UK politics (unlike say the US) that's how it usually works - there's no distinction between election to an office and taking up that office. Is there any evidence that Boris is currently mayor-elect rather than mayor? Vilĉjo (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Good question. In an admittedly brief search, I haven't found any solid reference to "mayor-elect" that doesn't refer to the 2000 election (this BBC News article is an example), and since that was the first term of the then-new mayoralty it may be that there was some reason to wait. For a 2008 perspective, the front page of London Elects says quite simply that Johnson "has been declared the Mayor of London", and the BBC uses almost identical wording. My guess is that the BBC and London Elects are right, and the "mayor-elect" in the current revision of this article is wrong, but I am not sufficiently sure to edit it now. Loganberry (Talk) 01:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The official Mayor of London site has a big headline saying "Boris is London's Mayor". Given that present tense, I'm going to edit the article. Loganberry (Talk) 01:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The controlling legislation (GLA Act 1999) says that the Mayor's term of office begins two days after the last results are returned. Holgate (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed...the phrasing of section 2 of the Act is quite clear. Reverting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.9.23 (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with "Mayor-Elect" until 4 May, but it reverted several times. I am confused.--w_tanoto (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too! I was wrong, and he was mayor-elect at the time I edited. Sorry. Loganberry (Talk) 14:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

there you go. in his own words "i am not the mayor until sunday night" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.26.177 (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this (I edited in both directions before giving up in confusion). It'll become irrelevant within 24 hours or so anyway, except that the infobox will need to show 4 May as the start of his term. Vilĉjo (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have now changed it to Mayor since Boris Johnson was sworn in at 11.30 this Morning in City Hall, at that moment becoming Mayor from Mayor Elect --Duncanbruce (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect. He doesnt become mayor until midnight on sunday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.26.177 (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. He was not 'sworn in' as such either, he simply signed a Declaration stating effectively that he accepted his election and would abide by ethical standards directions given by the central government. --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad it's not just me who's confused. Vilĉjo (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I contacted the City of London offices and gathered this information:

A) Boris Johnson was declared the winner of the London Mayoral Election at 11.57pm GMT. (He becomes Mayor Elect) B) Boris Johnson signs the declaration, agrees to abide by the rules and regulations and becomes Mayor of London at 11.30am GMT (He is now Mayor, Ken Livingston is no longer Mayor) C) There is agreed transitional period between administrations, this is period for Ken Livingston and his staff to vacate the Mayoral Offices, the deadline for this 12.00pm Sunday. (This is officially when the Boris Johnson Administration Begins)

So Boris Johnson is MAYOR of LONDON as of 11.30 This Morning, His administration begins Monday at 00:00am. Therefore I am changing to back to the correct title, he is NO LONGER MAYOR ELECT.--Duncanbruce (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

ARRRRRRGGGGHHHHH would be people stop changing the page for godsake, just ring City Hall in London (020 7983 4100) They will confirm that Boris Johnson became Mayor as of 11.30 this Morning and his administration begins at midnight tonight! --Duncanbruce (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No wonder there's confusion. The Greater London Authority Act 1999 includes, at Part 1 Para 2(8) [5]:

The term of office of the Mayor and Assembly members returned at an ordinary election shall—

(a) begin on the second day after the day on which the last of the successful candidates at the ordinary election is declared to be returned; and

(b) end on the second day after the day on which the last of the successful candidates at the next ordinary election is declared to be returned;

This surely means that Boris begins his term of office on Monday (the second day after the day on which the last of the successful candidates at the ordinary election was declared to be returned) since the last successful candidates were declared at 00:52 on Saturday, according London Elects [6].

In passing, it also appears that Ken's reign ends on Monday - does this mean they are both mayor on Monday?

We should also note that the signing of the declaration of acceptance of office has no bearing on the matter since it only has to be signed sometime within two months of the date of the election - see Section 28 of the Act [7].

CS⁴⁶ 20:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This is part of the confusion, the document is referring to the Office of Mayor, where as in the opinion of City Hall it seems that the 'Title' of Mayor is bestowed upon agreeing to the terms of office. Therefore Boris is Mayor but does not begin the office until Sunday or Monday which ever way you read it. Its also similar to the title PM, upon winning a majority in a General Election, the party and its leader are legally leaders of the country, however they don't get the title 'government' and 'prime-minister' until they have seen the queen in Buckingham Palace the day after the election and request to form a government. Just British Politics I am afraid. --Duncanbruce (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what City Hall says. The Act is patently clear! He enters office as Mayor at midnight. Notably, the BBC does recognise this in their latest article. But even if they didn't the Act is quite clear! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.9.23 (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does this article say election is the 5th. My interpretation of Section 2 is the 4th - the second day (Sunday) after the day on which results were delcared (Friday). Unless Sunday does not count for some reason...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ice Gator (talk • contribs) 12:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for completeness, it obviously cannot be true that the 'Title' of Mayor is bestowed upon agreeing to the terms of office, since that declaration of acceptance only has to be signed sometime within two months of the date of the election. In any case, according to the Act, Ken still holds the office of Mayor until tomorrow, and I cannot see how you (one) can hold the office of Mayor and not be Mayor! Still this will all be history in 5 hours time - until the next time. CS⁴⁶ 18:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Just had a thought. Is it tomorrow UTC, or tomorrow BST? CS⁴⁶ 18:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well as the official time in the United Kingdom is currently BST, it's BST. David (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake folks, why all the pedantry? There seems to be no argument that in a few hours time he will indeed be mayor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

See Tongue-in-cheek. CS⁴⁶ 20:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Re date of beginning of term, (copied from Mayor of London Talk Page) the legislation says the terms start and end on the same day (presumably at midnight The BBC says 2400BST, which is still the 4th...).

Anyway, two bbc articles concur (re when the seals of office were handed over...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7383521.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7383521.stm

I know this is largely academic, but I'm going to change it--Gordon (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments made about Islam after July 7 bombings

These comments (from the Spectator) were added yesterday evening. They were made by Johnson shortly after the July 7 bombings in 2005. These were clearly comments made in anger after that atrocity and I am really not sure that we should hold them on this page as his true, cool headed beliefs. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but others won't. I think the best compromise for now is to leave them but with it clear they were made after the bombings. To be fair, this entire article will arguably have to be rewritten now as he clearly is known for something completely different than before George The Dragon (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether Johnson's comments were made with a cool head or not is pure speculation. Perhaps the best way to balance the comments would be for someone to place a quote in which he has said something positive about Islam or muslims. I do think this will be difficult considering the consistently negative stance in the spectator.Pakhistory1 (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If this is the first time anyone has pointed to these comments as evidence of Boris Johnson's Islamophobia, they shouldn't be in the article. That is synthesis of published material. Has anyone actually accused the new mayor of being Islamophobic and are these accusations published? Were these comments given as evidence? If not, this is not an appropriate use of primary source material and I'm going to remove it. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 10:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There are numerous articles about johnson's islamophobia The islam and muslims section is under the controversies heading. The quote regarding the Andijan massacre is stated in a totally neutral form with a wiki link. Readers should make their own mind up about the level of sarcasm and its validity. The comment is referenced with a direct link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakhistory1 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but you have grossly distorted what Johnson is saying in that article by selectively quoting him. That quote is very far from neutral in its presentation and clearly is intended to ascribe to Johnson beliefs that he does not hold. I have removed it for the time being. You need to come up with quotes that fairly represent the views of Johnson, which are complex. Thanks, Gwernol 11:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The reference is to an article criticising human rights in Uzbekistan, and specifically pointing out that they don't treat Muslims very well. It is then saying that Uz is getting closer to Russia and that this is only natural because neither country has any qualms about abusing human rights. As far as I can see, that comment was deliberately taken completely out of context in a way that implied those are Boris Johnson's views. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 11:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think the statement 'Whatever you say about the Russians' actually means? Asifchaudry (talk) 11:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You have to read the whole article, where Johnson quotes interviewees who fear the rise of Islam in Uzbekistan. It is clear that Johnson sympathises with their fears. He then states that Uzbekistan is again getting closer to Russia, and that Russia has a history of cracking down on Islamic supported uprisings i.e. in Chechnya. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who reads the full article in the context of Johnson's consistent stance in the telegraph and the spectator as well as the other quote above will understand the statement: Whatever you say about the Russians, they have no qualms when it comes to abusing human rights, if that means cracking down on Islam to mean: However badly you feel about the Russians, at least they don't let human rights come in their way when it comes to controlling Islam.

I am surprised that Gustav has changed my question above that originally read: so what is exactly do you think 'whatever you say about the Russians' means. This is the crux of whether you read the statement in a supportive light or not. Asifchaudry (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for inadvertedly modifying your question- I mistakenly cut instead of copying the phrase in order to find the original article in Google. I think you are misinterpretating Johnson's comments in thinking that he is agreeing with the actions of the Russians. I think perhaps he is comparing the actions of the Americans with the Russians, in that the Russians have successfully quelled Islamic fundamentalism in Chechnya, but the Americans have not done so with their actions in Iraq/Afghanistan. Earlier in the article, Johnson says how beautiful the mosques are, but seems unsettled that they are so "inert". I don't think those are the remarks of an islamophobe. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole of the Islam and Muslims section now seems to have been removed!! It appears that someone wishes to whitewash everything Johnson has said! I am going to reinstate the Islam is the problem.. Medieval ass quote Asifchaudry (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't revert the Spectator quote. Selectively quoting Johnson to distort what he is saying is not only unfair, its strictly against Wikipedia's rules on maintaining a neutral point of view and original research. Thanks, Gwernol 13:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Highest number of votes cast for an individual candidate in a UK election?

In May 1st's London Mayoral election I'm pretty sure a new British record has been broken: Boris got the most votes ever for an individual candidate (so not a party or a list of candidates) standing in an election. If this is true, surely it should be mentioned on this article and elsewhere on Wikipedia? David (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly but that would be original research unless someone has already said so in reliable published material.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 12:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Cripes!

Did he actually utter this legendary line? Lugnuts (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The out of context quote at the end of the "Persona" section is not relevent to the section it's in. If it should be in the article at all, it should be in the "contraversies" section and mention the fact that he subsequently decided to vote in favour of the civil partnerships bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.15.237 (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Boris is all of 1/8th Turkish, I'm not sure that this is deserving of putting him in the "Turkish-English people" cat rather than just "English people", since its his great-grandfather. Too distant to put him in such a category IMO. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Usually I would agree, but I think the fact that he mentions it so often, as well as the fact that the Turkish media got all excited about it probably qualifies him for inclusion as a special case. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gustave here, if Boris were ashamed of it I would remove it based on our WP:BLP policy but as he remains so proud of this we should have no fear in categorising him thus. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing content

I'm not going to edit war, but per WP:BLP "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

Sometimes I think people forget altering details on a BLP is not a game. George The Dragon (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, contentious material. The information you removed in this edit is far from contentious. the wub "?!" 15:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Exaclty what I was going to say, and the amount removed was ridiculously large. This is what inline tags were invented for. This was a clumsy edit, and cannot be excused by running to BLP. MickMacNee (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

A previous passage on this point stated that Darius Guppy had asked Boris Johnson for Stuart Collier’s address because of Mr Collier’s “knowledge of his insurance fraud.” But the newspaper serialisation of the tape recordings made clear that the tapes had been made in 1990, ie) at around the time that Darius Guppy was paid out by Lloyds insurance company, when he was therefore not under suspicion. It was not for another year in 1991 that Mr Guppy was arrested when a police informer had given evidence against him. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS5cnNFtnaw). In fact Mr Guppy had sought Mr Collier’s address when he learned that Collier had been attempting to dig up dirt about members of his family including his future wife. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view), Mr Johnson did not provide Mr Collier’s address to Mr Guppy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.208.16.57 (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Boris resigns as MP for Henley

I've added Boris' letter to the people of Henley that he wrote after resignation of his MP's seat there. However, I can't seem to make it appear in any form other than a solid block of text with no paragraphs - can anyone help put it in its original, paragraphed form? The letter is in its original form in the reference link, if that's any assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.200.2 (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Resignation of Deputy Mayor

Hello, just wondering where to put this piece of information? It's easy to source and has to be added in here somewhere, as it's all over the article of the fellow in question, but I have no idea whether to put it in the "controversy" section or the "Mayor of London" bit. My preference would be to put it in the "controversy" section. Yeah, yeah, the section is pretty big as it is, but the allegations over Lee Jasper's alleged financial misconduct and otherwise "wrong-doing" seems to be in Ken's controversy section, and that article is dominated by at least 3/4 "controversy". I have no doubt as to where I think it should go but I'd like to get a few different opinions on this first, if indeed there are any, :). Thanks. 92.16.157.157 (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Boris himself actually did anything wrong here though, did he? Therefore, it's a little strange to put it under "controversy," especially since all the others are reactions to something he said/wrote. I say it belongs somewhere under the Mayoral section. Bangdrum (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you; I shall add to this little bit and try to increase neutrality. Thanks again, 92.22.20.124 (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

British-Arab University Association

It was formerly claimed in the article that Johnson was a member of the association while at Oxford. Gimson says nothing about this, and all internet sources are mirrors or non-reputable sources. The contemporary name for the association, British Arab Exchanges (BAX) - none of the internet sources appear to indicate when the change was made - gains no hits when combined with "Boris Johnson". Philip Cross (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Boris Johnson! The King of London?!

Is it true he once said this in an interview with the mail? please do not delete i would like to know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.56.185 (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Political positions

There's no section on Johnson's political positions. I'll try to add some, but if someone else can add some too, please do.--Gloriamarie (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Do any other UK politicians have their "positions" listed? I know a few US politicians do, but given Churchill, for example, doesn't, is it really needed? George The Dragon (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ian Blair

What are opinions on this matter? Surely if comments on the US presidential election and a spell at the Beijing Olympics warrant inclusion in the Mayor of London section, then the resignation of Ian Blair should have some kind of section?

Hairstyle mystery

There ought to be a section on his hair. I'm wondering how he keeps it pernamently shaggy - by implication he must get it cut to look shaggy. But what self-respecting barber would cut it to look like that? The plot thickens. 89.242.114.52 (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Daily Mail Jan 2009 [8], says "Caught off the cuff, when congratulated about being awarded Best Celebrity Hair by Brylcreem (‘Is that still going then?’), Johnson lets slip his grooming secrets: ‘I don’t do anything bar the occasional wash.

'I don’t dye my hair. Good God, never. I didn’t even think this was a style. It’s the result of putting on a beanie hat first thing in the morning, which sort of tames it. Apart from, that is, when I pull it off and then it goes all over the place.’" Bangdrum (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Photo

Is it possible to get a better photo? I know he looks like a scruffy bugger at the best of times, but this one makes him look like a disheveled, drunken sex-pest. If not, could we at least crop it to a bust in order to conceal his bulging waist, unbelted trousers and badly tucked-in shirt-tail?86.1.196.156 (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Should the statement under "2008 Olympics" be removed?

"He was accused by a Chinese blogger of being "rude, arrogant and disrespectful" for accepting the Olympic flag with one hand, putting his hands in his pockets and not buttoning up his jacket.[57]"

Although he did put his hands in his pocket and not button up his jacket, "rude, arrogant and disrespectful" are what the bloggers described him. That statement is opinionated and I think it should be avoided as Wikipedia is a reference tool for facts.

Adenosine Triphosphate (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Taxi Expenses

Boris Johnson's expense claims have just been published. They reveal a 540% increase in taxi expenditure by the new Mayor in 2008/09 compared to the previous Mayor in 2007/08, and several claims that appear to be invalid under GLA rules (taxis for less than 1 mile when a public transport alternative exists, taxis from home to office paid for by tax payers, and leaving taxis waiting for hours with the taxpayer feeding the meter - e.g. (among several examples) a £950 claim to travel the 3 miles return journey - a 17 minute bus ride - between City Hall and Elephant and Castle). They also appear to conflict with the Mayor's stated "last resort" taxi policy (almost 3 claims a week would appear not to be a "last resort" but a regular occurance).

These claims are well referenced both in media sources normally sympathetic to the Mayor such as the Evening Standard, and are also available on the GLA website.

Other editors disagree that these claims are relevant and keep removing any reference to this in the article (as they believe that flouting the GLA rules in this way is a trivial matter). I think that it is worthy of inclusion - and looking at e.g. Ken Livingstone's wiki page would seem to support that view given the large space it gives to "controversy" such as an argument with an Evening Standard journalist and other things.

What do others think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.186.2 (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, editing is not a personal vendetta. It means I objectively think your edit is out of proportion to the subject, not that I personally want to keep "bad things about Boris" off the page. (Do note, I don't even live in the UK!) If you want to add a SMALL section, without excessive quoting on how "the Mayor regrets" this and "rules state" that, and can cite a few more articles to it for the claim that "The Media" is reporting he will be investigated, then go right ahead. You might notice he's already got plenty of controversies; another isn't going to hurt him any worse. If you'd like to see what I mean in a practical sense, look at the Damian Green section - I wrote that. Also remember, repeatedly re-adding the same thing over and over isn't going to get anyone on your side. It's much better to try and fix whatever the complaints about it are and see if you still want to put it in. Cheers. Bangdrum (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I never suggested it was a personal vendetta.

You originally claimed that this was too trivial to include - comparing it to Ken Livingstone's wine cupboard. Good you have changed your mind.

And this wasn't repeated re-adding the same thing - I made adjustments in response to your "triviality" deletions, only reverted 2 or 3 times, and wrote a note here (I was going to stop until I had more opinions on this instead of tiresome revert warring). It was quite difficult to fix your complaint that "Boris breaking GLA rules is trivial" to be honest. Less trivial than a lot of what is getting space on this article certainly (e.g. Boris on Top Gear, a deliberately biased "Forensic Audit Panel" suggesting there are some areas the LDA can improve value for money etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.186.2 (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you want to go play in the mud. I don't. I'd just like to reiterate, in the hope that you understand it this time, that I never said "Boris breaking GLA Rules is trivial." I have looked into this story and it does appear to be getting more coverage than I had originally known, but unless it becomes a Green-level scandal, it doesn't deserve a multi-paragraph section with quotes. That was why I reverted it mostly. I have no issue with the current edit and no intention of doing anything to it unless further developments require an addition.

As for Ken's wine cupboard vs. "insulting a journalist," that was really rather more than that. He (whether inadvertantly or not) compared a Jewish journalist to a Nazi, opening himself up to a host of antisemitism charges. They were considering removing him from office for that. It takes up a perfectly reasonable amount of space. By the same token, of course, it shouldn't be the entire article! That's the point of NPOV. Finally, Ken has even more controversies than Boris, and their size is relative to their lasting effects. As this is (so far) a fairly small controversy for Boris, it shouldn't be the biggest event in that section. (BTW, Top Gear is a media appearance (rather like mentioning Ken's record of HIGNFY appearances) and the Audit Panel is a smallish paragraph.) Anyway, I think we're done revert-warring now. Bangdrum (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really want to dwell on this - but in my opinion deleting comment completely (rather than shortening if) suggests to me that you disagree with its inclusion rather than have issues with its length. Maybe I'm wrong.

The 'insulting the journalist' thing was a hyper-sensitive reaction from a newspaper that normally decries political correctness (only when it's opponents are doing the political correctness I guess). I don't understand why you believe that this is worthy of 4 times as much space as flouting GLA rules on expenses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.186.2 (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Cycling

That little paragraph on cycling in the "Personal" section is getting longer, partly due to my own efforts; perhaps we should separate the controversy part of it from the Personal section and give it its own section in the controversies section. Or not, if editors think it does not really rank up there with the most important issues. JN466 16:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thuggish Activities and Drug Taking with the Bullingdon Club

It would be timely to point out here that Johnson admitted smashing up restaurants, drug dealing and use whilst he was a 'special needs' boy and 'fag' at Eton. The same is true of David Cameron. In view of his post-Tottenham riots suggestions that a) violent gangs should be criminalised, and b) drug taking by teenagers should be a jailable offence - I wonder if the Police have any plans to send Storm Troopers into Eton and close it down? Saying that unlimited Police resources will be spent bringing looters and rioters to justice, whilst remaining in office unprosecuted themselves is unconcionable. 79.70.227.25 (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)WhiteSpace79.70.227.25 (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see any reference to Boris Johnson being involved with drug dealing in a search on the internet (which, I'll admit, was quick). I agree however that the Bullingdon club should be added to the controvery section. It certainly has been controversial for some time. There are numerous articles in the media about this, in addition to the already cited "When Boris met Dave". It would also seem reasonable to say that some have compared this youthful vandalism to the 2011 England riots, e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/aug/10/uk-riots-boris-johnson.

I can't make edits, but perhaps a registered user might find the following useful as a rough draft.

Bullingdon club membership and vandalism.

While a student at Oxford University, Boris Johnson was a member of the Bullingdon club, which is notorious for its drunken parties and vandalism. According to one account, he was arrested after a flower pot was thrown through a restaurant window (source, "Boris Met Dave"). While others claim he was never arrested (source needed), Boris Johnson claims that he was arrested but that charges weren't brought because his fellow club members declined to corroborate other reports to the police. (source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6860179.ece).

In the wake of the 2011 English riots, a Guardian opinio piece has compared the vandalism of the Bullingdon club with that of the rioters (source http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/aug/10/uk-riots-boris-johnson). 109.150.35.229 (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive

Archived discussions may be found here 04:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Bias

I haven't even logged onto this site in years but I had to- aren't people supposed to be making this unbiased? the amounts of weasel words in the text favoring Boris were ridiculous... "and this led some supporters to claim that"-irrelevant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickfan (talk • contribs) 04:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Negativity

This article seems very biased and negative towards Boris. The first paragraph should simply outline who he is, what he does and his previous employment. Instead it contains mention of "physical assault", "received negative headlines" and "allegedly lying" which aren't pertinent to this section. Whilst all this could be brought up in individual sections, or preferably in the "Criticism" section, it is not objective to mention all of these things in the opening paragraph.

Similarly "became one of the most high profile politicians in the country, partly because of his distinctive appearance and persona." is entirely subjective and has no citation.

The Mayor of London section is also very negative. Most newspapers have reported that Boris is doing well in the role of Mayor (which should be looked up - if no one else is willing I will at a later date) There are repeated mentions of criticisms by various people, such as "was criticised by Labour", "was accused by a Chinese blogger", "critics have argued", "There are questions" and so on, when of course every event that ever occurs is criticised by someone. These are often speculative, and add nothing to the article.

Essentially I think the whole thing needs a rework, with much of this negativity moved to the "Controversies" section, or removed altogether, and the main sections made more factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.201.157 (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC) >what about his picture? Worst comb over EVER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Royal heritage

Does anyone have an actual set of certificates that prove this royal blood in any way at all? Or was it, like Camerons' claims, mere guff to curry favour with the Royal Family's acolytes at the top of the conservative party? A link to an actual tree would help. 79.70.232.130 (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)twl79.70.232.130 (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There is little doubt he is a real bastard.

Under the Royal Marriages Act any descendant of King George II must require consent from the present monarch for their marriage to be legal under British law. As Boris' ancestry was not known at the time this makes all marriages in his immediate family void and offspring illegitimate. Any heir to the throne of Britain cannot be born from an illegitimate marriage therefore the family of Boris Johnson are not able to inherit the throne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.56.117 (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this? noq (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

At best this is a drawing of conclusions from various sources, which is not permitted here. If a reliable source has expressly drawn this conclusion in relation to Johnson, it might have been usable but still unnecessary because the likelihood of any of his descendants ever ascending the throne is so slight that even mentioning it might be considered to give undue weight to the matter. Rodhullandemu 00:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As an illegitemate child, he cannot rise to the throne anyway. In British Legal systems, only a child born to married parents takes its father's status (e.g. Nationality, Domicile etc), and a child born to unmarried parents takes the Mother's status. 129.215.5.254 (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Routemaster bus photograph

I have enlarged this photo, because it seemed right to do so! Can anyone manage to crop the right-hand side of nothingness - and a bit off the top - from the photo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdudding (talk • contribs) 21:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

'... Oxford's Bullingdon Club, a student dining society known for its raucous feasts.'

Is 'raucous feasts' really the right phrase? If we're being objective, this sentence ought really to refer to the vandalism and antisocial behaviour associated with the club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack.OSull (talk • contribs) 21:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Boris Johnson/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article seems to be a bit behinde the times. SHADOW arts minister Boris Johnson was sacked by Conservative party leader Michael Howard last night amid fresh allegations about his private life. The flamboyant MP, who dovetailed his political career with his post as editor of the Spectator, had spent the last week dismissing claims of an extra-marital affair with Petronella Wyatt, a columnist on the magazine. But with Sunday newspapers preparing to publish further details of their relationship today - including claims that Wyatt had aborted their child - Johnson was told by Howard to go. this is from an old news paper article.

Last edited at 08:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 14:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)