Talk:Alan Johnson

Marriage(s)

Just who has Alan been married to?! Is he now not married to this "Kirsten Imrie"?Jamesedwardsmith 21:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In his dreams!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.42.185 (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection

Why? MurphiaMan 07:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Speculation about future

I think this section is a bit weak. Polly Toynbee suggests he might be a future labour leader so that warrants a section? I would be very suprised if he's ever a labour leader and Toynbee's comments say more about her own viewpoint than Johnson's future prospects. Petepetepetepete (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a fair comment. I've spoken to Polly about his latest fiasco, and she's not impressed, I can tell you! 87.114.156.154 (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't believe in God. So what?

What's the purpose of the addition about whether he believes in God or not (sourced from a Daily Mail (to Americans that's like sourcing something from the Weekly World News). Similar statements have been added to many politician's articles (mostly Labour politicians). The Daily Mail article, like most Mail articles, was written in such a way as to imply that not believing in God was something negative and the prose in the article made clear that those who refused to answer the question or said they weren't sure were misleading the public. It then sought to make up claims about why the person did / didn't believe in God (because he was brought up in extreme poverty, etc.). Statements about a belief in God (unless it's an integral part of that person) have no place in articles about British politicians. It may be suitable for articles on American politicians because the USA is a much more religious country.--Xania ^talk 00:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

A person's religious beliefs are relevant to his life, so they should be included where reliably sourced. That is the case no matter what the subject's nationality, profession etc. Jim Michael (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Drug policy section

This whole section is too big now, it is coatracking of these advisers that don't like the fact that they are not politicians, they want their advice to be law, the government makes the decisions, they are just advisors, the sections should be trimmed, they have their own article so anything worthwhile needs moving there,

A group of Drug advisors led by .... resigned when they wanted their advice implemented into law, the government thanked them for their advice and explained we have many things to consider, not only your advise. Off2riorob (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There has been repeated criticism of the government on this since Prof. Nutt. If you think that the section has gotten too long, that can be dealt with if that is the consensus, but the items chosen for removal should be chosen based on something better than your low opinion of the scientists. -Rrius (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC

Excuse me, please don't assert opinions on to me. The scientists are great and the politicians are great, the section is/was excessive here, "repeated criticism of the government", yawn. This is the biography of mr Johnson, lets not coatrack issues here. Off2riorob (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"of these advisers that don't like the fact that they are not politicians" is an opinion. You clearly don't like or don't respect them. If you don't want people to come to conclusions about your opinions, don't make them so obvious. Also, don't just throw around terms like "coatracking". If you believe it is truly coatracking, explain which passages do so and how. Criticism of Johnson's handling of this situation is clearly relevant, notable, and verified, so the burden is on you to explain exactly why it doesn't belong. -Rrius (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Its excessive coatracking content, when things are so clear it is not throwing but more pointing to the bright. LOOK at this, Johnson keeps drug at level 3, the advisors object...after that, what the drug advisors and their mates do is about them and not the subject of this article, its coatracking to mention the organization that the person goes off and creates, which looking at it is not even notable and all the not notable names of the other even less notable people that have also resigned their minor not notable role are not worthy of a mention here or anywhere else for that matter. Off2riorob (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This whole section is too big now,

Too big for who - for you, eh?

it is coatracking of these advisers that don't like the fact that they are not politicians

Who would _want_ to be a politician, for goodness sake?

they want their advice to be law,

No. They want their advice to be advice, not politics.

the government makes the decisions

and they live with the consequences.

they are just advisors,

they are just politicians

the sections should be trimmed

so you keep saying. Yet the reasons you give are related to these "just advisors".

These advisors _are_ making trouble for Johnson.

they have their own article so anything worthwhile needs moving there,

True.

the government thanked them for their advice and explained we have many things to consider,

Yes - like The Sun and The Mail! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.149.126 (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Well, welcome to the talkpage, clearly the government have to consider the bigger picture and the advisors do not, this is not the place to discuss legalisation and control of drugs in society, lets not coatrack it here on this biography either, consider starting an article for that content.Off2riorob (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the relative importance of advisors or politicians in the creation of policy,

whatever _you_ may think yourself about the matter. If there were a wiki entry for Off2riorob, such views might be put there by others, but your views are not relevant here. The fact that must be recorded is that Mr Johnson did sack Nutt, with the effect that the ACMD is now depleted and weak. You may wish to suppress this _fact_ for your own reasons, but it is time for you to stop playing God with wikipedia. Cheers, and have a nice life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.149.126 (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Far too much in this article about this single issue when there is a better article that can be referenced out from here via a see main article - Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs Leaky Caldron 09:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not about the number of issues, but also about the weight of each one. This issue is weighty. Furthermore, Off2riorob has made personal comments, saying advisers "want their advice to be law", when he has absolutely no evidence of that. We need less shooting from the hip, and more facts about things. Thanks for your opinion, but my words stick - 7 have resigned since October, and I'll be incrementing that number as time passes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.149.126 (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Religion = atheism?

I've removed the "religion" field from the infobox, which read "atheist". It was sourced well, but ultimately boxes are for highlighting facts from the article not introducing them. Johnson may be an atheist, but I don't see any evidence he's prominent or outspoken as one, or that it has become a matter of public debate. Given that, I'm not sure he should be in the atheist category either. Per WP:BLPCAT "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources."--Scott Mac 13:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That guideline is for categories, not infobox details. Jim Michael (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I realises that. That's why I'm wondering whether the category should be removed as well.--Scott Mac 01:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes seem to be collections of facts, and his atheism is a fact. A vast number of infoboxes list people's religions without them being in any way outspoken about their beliefs, and without those beliefs figuring in the articles at all.--94.173.208.118 (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)