Talk:Boris Johnson

Education

Does anyone have any information about what Boris achieved in his A-Levels? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.85.144 (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

he was a member of Oxford's Bullingdon Club, a student dining society known for destroying restaurant dining rooms and paying for the repairs afterwards.[citation needed] I was not a member of the Bullingdon, but from what I heard, this was not the way the members behaved: I thought this sort of behaviour was usually carried out by members of the Assassins Club. 121.127.202.163 (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"middle-class English parentage"

Hardly. His parents on both sides are from upper-class families with extensive political connections (as their own Wikipedia entries readily disclose). Why falsify this?--98.114.178.63 (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

This article has been assembled using what Wikipedia terms reliable sources, and these testify to Johnson's middle-class origins. While he undoubtedly has aristocratic and upper-class ancestry (which is also mentioned within this article), he was not born into the extraordinary wealth or privilege that one typically associates with the upper classes. He got into the elite schools like Eton through scholarships rather than his father paying for them, and it was here that he came to adopt his upper-class mannerisms and demeanour, which in some respects disguise his slightly more modest childhood. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Descent?

Could someone mention in this article that he is of Russian descent as well? He shows up in the list of english people of russian descent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.210.231 (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Nationality

A previous citation claims that Johnson renounced his American citizenship in 2006, however in a recent interview he affirms that he is a dual British/American citizen. I have given preference to Johnson's claim in the interview that he is a dual citizen, but would it be possible for someone to check if he did indeed renounce his American citizenship? --217.28.10.31 (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

He did not renounce his American citizenship -- which is why he is currently being asked to pay US taxes, a request he is, um, declining. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

True. See also Talk:Boris_Johnson#Inaccuracies_at_.22several_crucial_points.22.3F. --KurtR (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

An American citizen (in any category of citizenship) may request a citizenship renouncement, often done while living abroad. The condition for acceptance however includes affirming that one has filed complete tax returns with the US authority over the five immediately preceding years or doing so as a condition of the renouncement request. Other conditions might also apply. This was detailed in the Dec 6/7 2014 weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal starring on page B7. Regardless of his attempts at renouncement, Mr Johnson possibly would not qualify for it at this time until he completed his tax filing obligations, including the need to possibly pay back penalties as well as current capital gains on the sale of his London home. It has been noted that the accumulated back taxes and penalties might represent an insurmountable amount for him. ~~

Has Mr Johnson satisfied his American military service obligation under the American Selective Services Act ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.65.176 (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Under "Early Childhood" it states: "His birth was registered with both the U.S. authorities and the city's British Consulate, with the child thus being awarded both American and British citizenship." In fact registration of a birth has nothing to do with attribution of U.S. nationality, or for that matter, British nationality (given the facts of parentage and the birth of a parent in Britain). A certification of birth is an entitlement (under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) and under New York and Federal law. But many births in the past were never registered, and some, typically signed by midwives in border states, have been questioned (typically by the State Department upon application for a passport or (prior to current passport rules) on re-entry from Mexico) as fraudulent.

It is questioned (above in this Talk section) whether Johnson actually renounced his US nationality when he said he had, or would do. And it is also stated that renunciation is contingent upon payment of tax. Johnson did not (it is not quickly done, there is a long waiting list with the Consular Sections in London, Edinburgh and Belfast) but I suppose he will do. The tax issue is more complex: there is an exit tax, quite onerous for "covered expatriates" -- generally speaking those with assets over $2 million or an tax bill of $155,000 (as of 2013). There are also other tax implications relating to gifts and estates. There is a concession for persons born to alien parents who renounce by age 18-1.2: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/877

It is quite possible to be a non-citizen -- even to have been deported as an illegal alien -- and still be liable for U.S. tax, perhaps indefinitely, Indeed long-term green-card holders are also subject to the exit tax system. Andygx (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Boris Johnson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Paul MacDermott (talk · contribs) 16:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Paul MacDermott

I'm sorry to have to say this, but I'm minded to fail this article. It's a shame because ideally we should aim to get all major politician articles up to at least GA status, and as Johnson is a potential future leader of the Conservative Party this should be of the same standard as something like David Cameron or Margaret Thatcher, but sadly it is just not there yet. Much of the article is referenced, but a significant proportion of the prose consists of lengthy sections on his various television appearances and a string of instances in which he's made an unfortunate comment about someone or something and been called upon to resign. Undoubtedly some of these are notable, such as his comments about Liverpool, but others are not. Having an individual section about subjects such as his remarks on Portsmouth, and even his stance on Fracking seem to be stretching this a little far, and with so much criticism included could raise questions about the article's neutrality. Much of the information might find a better home in Political positions of Boris Johnson or even an article about his time as mayor, something similar to Premiership of David Cameron for instance (would Mayorship of Boris Johnson be right?).

On top of that there are sections and quotes without sources, and everything here should be referenced. Moreover an editor has expressed concern about a section, "Allegations of racism" having undue weight. It's a phrase that could apply to much of the overall content in my humble opinion. Other sections consist of just one very short paragraph, such as "Support for Fracking The Earth", and I wonder about the relevance of knowing that Franny Armstrong was a Livingstone supporter. What does it add to the article?

Boris Johnson is a controversial figure, although that doesn't negate his article from becoming a Good or even Featured article, but there are too many issues for it to pass right now. My advice would be to look at articles such as David Cameron, Neville Chamberlain and others which have reached GA or FA. Study their layout and the information that is regarded as relevant, then use them as a template for this one.

Overall comments

• Pass/Fail:
  • Fail An article missing references and with issues regarding undue weight cannot be a GA without substantial work. I'm afraid there is too much to do in the timespan of a GA review. I would suggest working on the article and then re-nominating it at a later date. When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to ask for it to be reassessed. Paul MacDermott (talk) (disclaimer) 16:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• • The reviewer has requested a second opinion, which I am happy to provide. I support the conclusion that the article does not meet the GA criteria at this time. I agree with the reasons given, and I will add that the current version of the article relies too heavily on quotations.

    I also recommend reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, then reviewing every sentence in this article to remove words that might introduce bias. For example, "Johnson is a lover of Latin" doesn't seem to use very professional wording. Edge3 (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Further comments:

• "Parental origins, education and marriages" is not an appropriate section header. Maybe change to "Personal life"? The current "Personal life" section could be merged into the other sections.
• File:Mayor BoJo.jpg seems to be an unnecessary image. I think it should be removed from the article.
• In the "2008 London Mayoral election", summarize the manifesto and remove the subsections.
• Some of the "Television appearances" sections don't appear to be noteworthy. The section should be condensed by summarizing the key television appearances and removing the rest.
• The "Allegations of racism" section has a cleanup tag that needs to be addressed.

Hope this helps. Edge3 (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Removing some content

I'm removing some content from "Controversies" as I'm not sure how notable they are. Politicians often make remarks that upset one group or another, and while their musings may be disagreeable, IMHO this section should really be trimmed to include the controversies that attracted most media attention. At least for now anyway. Ultimately the section needs to be worked into other parts of the article. I'm posting removed content below. As ever, if you disagree with this feel free to revert my edits.

Papua New Guinea

In a 2006 column, Johnson likened Conservative leadership disputes to "Papua New Guinea-style orgies of cannibalism and chief-killing" and was criticised in Papua New Guinea. The nation's High Commissioner invited him to visit the country and see for himself, while remarking that his comments might mean he was refused a visa. Johnson suggested he would add Papua New Guinea to his global apology itinerary, and said he was sure the people there "lived lives of blameless bourgeois domesticity in common with the rest of us". In his defence, he stated "My remarks were inspired by a Time Life book I have which does indeed show relatively recent photos of Papua New Guinean tribes engaged in warfare, and I'm fairly certain that cannibalism was involved."

Portsmouth

In April 2007 Johnson was called upon to resign by the MPs for the city of Portsmouth after claiming in a column for GQ that the city was "one of the most depressed towns in Southern England, a place that is arguably too full of drugs, obesity, underachievement and Labour MPs".

Walkout over snow inquiry

On 2 April 2009, Johnson walked out of a House of Commons inquiry midway through giving an answer. He was asked by the Transport Select Committee if he had enquired as to whether there might be problems in the capital due to heavy snowfall. He refused to answer, stood up and left the room. The Greater London Authority transport committee chair Val Shawcross has said that he was not proactive and "entirely out of things". When he moved to leave, the Chair accepted that Johnson had already used the 40 minutes of time he agreed to give the inquiry. Johnson resumed his seat to answer further questions, revealing that he had spoken to Peter (Hendy, head of Transport for London) before 7 am on the morning of the heavy snowfall. He also told the inquiry there had been a "staggering quantity of snow" and that his further intervention "would not have made the slightest difference to the difficulties we encountered".

Article vandalism

Just logged in to remove some vandalism from the photo header, looks like someone beat me to it. Thanks! Degue (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Bias

This article is so bias, almost half of it is under the controversies section. I don't know about you lot but I got a funny feeling when reading through this article. It's almost like a Labour supporter wrote it! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't like to speculate on the reasons why it's so atrociously written, but it does need some serious attention, and preferably from someone who is familiar with the topic. If you can help please feel free to do so. I may attempt to address some of the issues myself in the future if nobody else does, although I'd need to read up on him first. Paul MacDermott (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the controversies section is in need of a serious cut; very small and insignificant incidents are given paragraphs or more. The allegations of racism section could entirely be removed as it has no substance. The "Chicken Feed" comments and Sinn Féin comments, perhaps others, could just be condensed into a paragraph Jebus989^✰ 12:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This happens to every article on a prominent politician if we're not careful: it becomes a laundry list of 'controversies' and criticisms by political opponents. (Ken Livingstone is also pretty bad.) In this case, while Boris is certainly a colourful figure who's had his fair share of gaffes and controversies, the article looks pretty imbalanced for devoting so much space to them compared to his political career. For example, while there's a fair amount about the 2008 election that made Boris Mayor of London, there's virtually nothing about the 2012 election that re-elected him, and little about his role in relation to the London Olympics. Robofish (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Stephanie

Shouldn't Stephanie Maintyre, his daughter with Helen Macintyre, be included in the 'children' section? Although she is his 'lovechild' and they tried to keep her paternity a secret, she is still technically his. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.186.189 (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

She is indeed one of his children and as such, I have included Stephanie Carlotta Macintyre under the children section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupert ms (talk • contribs) 15:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone has removed it again. Personally I don't think we should be mentioning any of his children by name, the infobox should state he has five children and no more. They are not in the public eye so deserve anonymity. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed it as unsourced since I couldn't see a Stephanie mentioned in the article, but realised that she was mentioned anonymously in a later section, so reverted myself. You're right, though, {{infobox person}} does say "For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless the children are independently notable." for this field. --McGeddon (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Other siblings?

Should there be an addition to his two other siblings - Julia and Maximilian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloggings (talk • contribs) 16:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Inaccuracies at "several crucial points"?

Johnson, in a press conference regarding the black cab strike in London, UK, mentioned inaccuracies in his Wikipedia page at "several crucial points", so I am going to take a look, but if anyone has any leads, then I would be most appreciative.--Soulparadox (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Citizenship: He is still American and British.[1]. I corrected Please correct my grammar etc. and I guess the thing with the dual citizenship needs to be moved to "Parental origins, education and marriages". Thanks. --KurtR (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated material in introductory paragraph

The penultimate sentence (see bewlow) of the introduction is not only unreferenced but highly subjective. "Critics have accused him of being out of touch with working people, laziness and dishonesty, and racism and homophobia." Crikey2046 (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree that the use of wording in this instance is "highly subjective"; instead what we have is an objective description of widely held subjective opinions. Critics have repeatedly accused him of these things, and that's a fact, however the article is not saying that these claims are objectively true. (For what it's worth, I don't think that Johnson is genuinely racist or homophobic, but that doesn't negate the fact that he has repeatedly been accused of being such). It is worth noting that that same paragraph also includes the subjective opinions of his supporters too; and thus there is a balance which accords with Wikipedia's NPOV standards. I would also point out that similar legacy/reception paragraphs can also be found, for instance, in the GA-rated article for Johnson's mayoral predecessor Ken Livingstone as well as those GA-rated articles for high-profile international politicians like Nelson Mandela and Fidel Castro; so Johnson is not being singled out for unfair treatment. Furthermore, as to the statement that these claims are not referenced, I again find that a little erroneous; while there are not direct references testifying to these facts within the lede itself, the references are however found throughout the rest of the article. In this case, the lede is simply summarising the contents of the rest of the article, as is Wikipedia policy. I hope that this helps, Crikey. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

75% of sources made from 1 book

I've noticed a large majority of sources this article uses sources stemming almost entirely from a paperback book written in 2011 by Sonia Purnell. Neither of these books appear available online. I'm not against using non-searchable and non-verifiable sources in Wikipedia, but to rely so heavily for information on a single book by one woman doesn't strike me as particularly fair/NPOV. The article reads like it was enthusiastically written by Livingstone himself 12 hours of digesting this biography. I felt compelled to discuss this because either "Just Boris" is rabidly anti-Johnson/anti-Conservative, or some contributors to this article have selectively added parts which portray Johnson in a more negative light. I'm inclined to believe the latter.Oxr033 (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

As it stands, there are only two biographies of Johnson that are currently available. One is that by Sonia Purnell, the other by Andrew Gimson. Gimson's was actually written first, and is far less detailed but is far more positive in its attitude toward Johnson (Gimson admits in the work that he is an old friend of Johnson's). Conversely, Purnell's work is far more detailed, particularly when it comes to Johnson's first term in mayoral office, but at the same time she is clearly rather more critical of him as a politician. Given that they represent the most in-depth studies of Johnson currently available, it is only natural that this Wikipedia article will rely heavily upon them (the GA-rated article for Ken Livingstone similarly relies heavily upon the biographies of him rather than press articles). Hopefully, future biographies will be produced by other individuals which can also be utilised in the construction of this article, thus improving its coverage. However, if you feel that there are specific passages within this article which betray an anti-Johnson bias and which are thus POV then please, feel free to point them out and they can then be discussed here. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: In the hope of rectifying this article's reliance on the Purnell biography, I have added in some further references from Giles Edwards and Jonathan Isaby's Boris v. Ken (2008). It's not particularly detailed when it comes to Johnson's biography, and obviously doesn't deal with his actions as mayor, but at least it's a start. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Citizenship

Should we include in the info box that he is a dual citizen of both the UK and USA? This seems like encyclopedic information, especially as for such a high profile politician such as Mr Johnson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.209.24 (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to doing so if it can be established using contemporary reliable sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

He was born an American, and I can find many sources that say he plans to renounce, but none that he actually has. So without a reliable source saying he is not and American, would he not still be considered one? http://news.sky.com/story/1427761/boris-johnson-to-renounce-us-citizenship It already says in the info box that he was born in NY, so he's automatically a citizen (in the USA, unlike the UK, you are automatically a citizen at birth. Your mother can get off the plane at JFK Airport in NYC and give birth at baggage, and you'd be just as American as George Bush). ~~ipuser 90.198.209.24 (talk) 07:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)