Talk:Boris Johnson/Archive 2

Education

Does anyone have any information about what Bruce 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)

This article has been edited to introduce a claim that Boris has 'upper-class parents'. Neither a reference is given, nor is class-analysis covered below. At least in terms of acknowledged parentage, Boris was not born from titled gentry. Class origins seems like a controversial political subject to me, not at all self-evident. There is considerable claim and counter-claim about class origins in English politics. Why not just state the facts about the vocations of his parents, and then research a section on opinions about parent's class origin, ideally citing good academic sources on the meaning of class in early twentieth century England...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.210.13 (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Could whomever has this locked at least go in and do some general editing? The overall level of the writing on this topic pretty much -sucks-, and would PERHAPS merit a passing grade in middle school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.184.114 (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2016 (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)

Since the U.S. military draft ENDED on January 27, 1973 (when Mr. Johnson was 9 years old), he is under no obligation to fulfill any "American military service obligation". A valid question WOULD, however, be whether Mr. Johnson HAS registered (as ALL U.S. dual-citizenship males are required to do) with the U.S. Selective Service System.

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)

The point being made, however, was that the U.S. government will NOT accept a renunciation of U.S. citizenship as long as the individual still owes U.S. taxes, which is very a different situation from that which you are positing.

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".

References

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)

Why remove MASSIVE sections of full-cited text about Boris?

I had added an update (about Boris pulling out of the leadership race) but someone just deleted 70 percent of that fully cited content. Why? Was there any consensus to do so? Or was it because the comments shed negative light on the famous Boris? I intend to add some of that back when I get home later today. I hope that does not lead to a subsequent edit war. Peter K Burian Peter K Burian (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The short blurb about Johnson's pulling out of the leadership race was deleted from the intro and moved to a later section, after deleting more detailed - and fully cited - coverage. His pulling out of the leadership race - because of Gove's negative comments - is an essential part of his career. I have restored the content. If there is consensus that it should be condensed a bit, OK. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that Midnighblueowl has made dozens of edits, some of them deleting large sections of fully cited text. Is everyone happy with that? It was Ritchie333 who removed much of my content about Boris pulling out of the leadership race because of the comments made by Gove, but wow, Midnight deleted vast amounts of full-cited text. Is this much condensing necessary? Examples:

•19:09, 30 June 2016‎ Midnightblueowl (talk | contribs)‎ . . (139,642 bytes) (-987)‎ . . (→‎The Times and The Daily Telegraph: cutting down excessive lengthy prose; we don't need so many quotations. Removing dead link) (undo | thank)

•18:47, 30 June 2016‎ Midnightblueowl (talk | contribs)‎ . . (140,629 bytes) (-516)‎ . . (→‎The Times and The Daily Telegraph: editing down prose.) (undo | thank)

•17:43, 30 June 2016‎ Midnightblueowl (talk | contribs)‎ . . (142,600 bytes) (-999)‎ . . (→‎Leading role for UK withdrawal from the EU: editing down prose.) (undo | thank)

•17:09, 30 June 2016‎ Midnightblueowl (talk | contribs)‎ . . (142,988 bytes) (-1,698)‎ . . (→‎Dispatches investigation: This is all duplicate material; it's already found elsewhere in the article. Devoting a whole section to it is just POV-pushing.) Peter K Burian (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Peter K Burian (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2016 (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)

Stephanie is again not mentioned anywhere on the page. someone has removed her from the children section which seems odd. I don't want to assume foul play. Abdul tom (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes I did, Abdul tom. Please read {{infobox person}} does say "For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless the children are independently notable." — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

but, Buzzard why then are his other children mentioned? It's therefore inconsistent when some of his children are mentioned and others aren't. In this case it is judged fine to mention the legitimate children but not the illegitimate, when the latter are certainly more notable in terms of press, citations etc. Abdul tom (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You are correct. For my part, I should prefer to have, "They have two daughters—Lara Lettice (born 1993) and Cassia Peaches (born 1997) —and two sons—Milo Arthur (born 1995) and Theodore Apollo (born 1999)." removed from the article. Cheers! — Buzzard — 09:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Buzzard then why not remove them as well? why remove only Stephanie? From a reader's perspective it is strange that one of the most widely written about aspects of Boris Johnson's personal life is hardly covered on the page. Will you be removing the other children? if not why not add Stephanie to the same section? could i suggest we mention how many children he has and with whom but not name them?Abdul tom (talk) 9:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly in-line with my thinking. I have edited the section accordingly. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Great. However, the legitimate children are still mentioned by name in the "Early Career" section, viz "It was here that the couple had three further children: Milo Arthur (born 1995), Cassia Peaches (b.1997), and Theodore Apollo (b.1999), all of whom were given the joint surname of Johnson-Wheeler." Also, a search of the page for "Stephanie", "lovechild" or "illegitimate" reveals nothing, even though this was a very widely reported aspect of Johnson's life and subject of a court case which seems concerning. The article in general could certainly do with more sections and subheadings. Abdul tom (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Done — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

his various affairs are also mentioned in the context of his career, and I'm wondering if they would be better mentioned in the "personal life" section. My inclination would be to add a mention of those, including the child with Helen Macintyre in that section, but not to name the child. I will do that in due course if there is no objection. Abdul tom (talk)

I have added a line in the "Personal Life" section just mentioning Stephanie's existence and naming her mother but not naming her. Please let me know if I have done this correctly, Buzzard.

The mention of Stephanie (who was not named) is AGAIN removed from the personal life section. Any idea why? Abdul tom (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I have re-added mention of Johnson's illegitimate daughter on the page regarding his children and personal life. I could not find any reference in the edit to section as to why it had again been removed. Abdul tom (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Stephanie is incorrectly being labelled "illegitimate" in the article. This descriptor is perhaps not the best term as it suggests he has no legal responsibility for her; in fact he and the mother could perhaps be labelled "illegitimate" if they are not in compliance with the UK parental responsibility law. Under the UK parental responsibility law (but not the EU Treaties) Johnson is equally responsible for her as the mother (regardless of whether he and the mother are marreid), provided that someone (which could have included Johnson himself) has clarified that he is the biological father, and provided that the mother has not formally consented to full parental responsibility. These are "rights of the child" issues where any privacy right of the parents is trumped by the child's basic right to have the bio parents identified and equally responsible as a baseline. 65.128.62.93 (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2016 (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)

Stuart Collier controversy. The original wording regarding this event was as follows: "Johnson was criticised in 1995, when a recording of a telephone conversation made in 1990 was made public, in which he is heard agreeing under pressure to supply to a former schoolmate, Darius Guppy, the private address and telephone number of the News of the World journalist Stuart Collier. There is no evidence that Johnson supplied the requested information, even though he promised under duress that he would. Guppy wished to have Collier beaten up for attempting to smear members of his family. Collier was not attacked, but Johnson did not alert the police and the incident became public knowledge only when a transcript of the conversation was published in the Mail on Sunday. Johnson retained his job at the Telegraph but was reprimanded by its editor Max Hastings. " These references make clear that all parties involved in the constroversy, which is to say Johnson, Guppy and the man hired by Guppy have stated independently of each other that Guppy's motivation was that the News of the World journalist (Collier) was looking to smear Guppy's family and not over any investigation being made into Guppy's gemstones heist. Guppy reiterates the point here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/7279297/The-truth-about-my-friend-Boris-and-my-feud-with-Earl-Spencer.html and here: https://sites.google.com/site/dariusguppymeetspeterstanford/chapter-3 In short, there is no evidence that Guppy's motivation was other than as the protagonists state it to be - as retribution for fairly typical News of the World behaviour. Guppy had got away with his venture and would not be uncovered until a year later when a police informer gave evidence to the police when arrested on another matter. And it is hardly likely that he would have done anything to draw attention to his venture having been paid out by Lloyds of London. More plausible is that elements of the press and Mr Johnson's enemies have sought to deflect from the real motivation to make him look bad since some may consider that supplying an address in a context where a journalist was attempting to smear family members is far less reprehensible.

References

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 an 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)

Boris renewed his American Passport in 2012: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-27371673 ~~ipuser 94.14.212.141 (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Boris is a American Citizen, something that I think should be noted in the infobox under citizenship. He may want to to give up his citizenship, but has not yet. As the senior London politician, an MP, and an aspiring PM, his dual citizenship is relevant information. I would put it in the lede (as British-American politician) but I realise that most others would not, but I think it should be right in the infobox. Cheers, ~~ipuser 94.14.212.141 (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like he will not be for much longer: [2], [3] & [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.99.189.241 (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

yes, but there are no reliable sources saying he has done it yet, thus, for our purposes, he surely hasn't. If and when he does give it up, we can then edit it quickly~ Ah! The beauty of wiki.

And I never suggested otherwise. However the references, from reliable sources, indicate that his US citizenship is not of prime importance; and this as per his own view of “It’s an accident of birth that has left me with this thing.": ~ Ah! The beauty of intelligence.

The information about his citizenship is already in the lead. If and only if Boris becomes involved in American politics should the infobox changed. Dbfirs 21:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me, I don't see it anywhere in the lede. Only that he was born in New York, but the majority of the English speaking world, who would read this, may not know that the US, unlike the UK, India, Pakistan, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc has birthright citizenship. ~~ipuser 94.14.212.141 (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it's later in the article that it is clearly stated. The lead is long enough already, and I don't think an automatic citizenship is of vital importance for the infobox. Dbfirs 21:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It is interesting to see this brought out in the Personal Life section. Johnson's intention to renounce US citizenship is mentioned but not his actual renouncement. I'm left wondering if he was entirely honest about the reason he gave. To decide to renounce so far into his political career might indicate that he's motivated chiefly to avoid further taxation penalties. The taxation system of the USA is unlike that of the UK and his renouncement would be perfectly understandable, if less appealing when considered alongside his political aspirations. Twistlethrop (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

From what I have read it was just the tax, commonly referred to as the ex-pat tax which all US citizens have to pay for their foreign earnings because the US inist that they are entitled (as the only country on earth) to not have double taxation agreements with other countries. In Boris' case a house was sold and on the rise in value he had to pay that ex-pat tax, complaining about it and saying he'd ditch his US citizenship. The late Marc Rich (Glencore) was pardoned by Bill Clinton on his last day for tax issues, and it looked very much like it was the ex-pat tax. Possibly, Boris has made an agreement with the IRS. Ditching US citizenship is a complicated and lengthy procedure.

In Boris Johnson's case divided loyalty is probably less of an issue. As Foreign Minister he gets paid by the British taxpayer - and the US tax office takes a cut? He needs to make a statement how things stand. 101.166.67.206 (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Article 19 of the US-UK Tax Treaty of 2001 states clearly that any income received by a citizen of one country for work in government of the other country is only taxable by the country of the government in question, unless the only reason for going to that country was to do that work. I don't believe that Johnson only came to the UK to do that work, so his work in UK Government is therefore not taxable in the USA; I'd expect he was as well aware of that as I am, but I can't be sure about that.

In his case, any other form of UK income is a different matter, as is any income he might continue to receive from property or activities in the USA. It's far too complex to do anything but give a nod in the direction that it's possible he might be taxed for it.

Having said that, the treaty gives the US IRS and the UK HMRC the right to tax former citizens for up to ten years if their renunciation of citizenship was primarily in order to avoid taxation. Twistlethrop (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2015

BORIS JOHNOSN IS NOT AN ANGLICAN - PLEASE DO YOUR RESEARCH! 151.226.53.28 (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - our statement "It was also here that he abandoned his mother's Catholicism and became an Anglican, joining the Church of England." is sourced - your claim is unsourced - Arjayay (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

But how did he "join the Church of England" while at Eton? Was he confirmed into the CoE? I assume (foolish foray into the unknown) that he was baptised as a Catholic, which I believe is accepted (like all Trinitarian baptisms) by the CoE. Or did he just start going to Anglican services? >MinorProphet (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

He has been reported as having 'said it would be "pretentious" to suggest that he is a "serious practicing Christian" even though he "thinks about religion a lot"' (Daily Telegraph, 29 Jan 2015). "Thinking about religion a lot" doesn't automatically mean that a person is in any way religious. In the light of that, trying to give him a label of Anglican, Catholic, Tousled Orthodox or any other branch of religion seems moot.Twistlethrop (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Referencing system

Boris Johnson is bae It appears that the majority of the references for the page are from various pages of "Just Boris: A Tale of Blond Ambition" by Purnell, would it be possible to condense these into a single reference? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Doing so would no doubt cause great confusion for it would prevent the reader from being able to check the page numbers that are being cited. The style of referencing used is a common one on Wikipedia, and can be widely found within FA rated articles. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hillsborough

Can someone add in a section on Boris Johnson's comments on Hillsborough over the years, including 2004 article on Liverpool? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.5.83 (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@109.151.5.83: The comments are briefly made under the "The Spectator and MP for Henley: 1999–2008" section of this article; as it was not actually Johnson himself who made it, the right-wing journalist Simon Heffer, then it's covered in more detail on his Wikipedia article and obviously on the Hillsborough disaster main article. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 00:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Question about the Churchill bust flap

We currently have a sentence reading: "These comments mentioning Obama's Kenyan ancestry – despite the fact the president was born in Hawaii – have been described by..." Now, my question here is, what does it matter that he was born in Hawaii? That doesn't mean he doesn't have Kenyan ancestry, but the phrasing would seem to somehow negate it. Now, the sentence goes on to describe the responses of several people who thought Johnson's comments on Obama were "dog-whistle racism", and maybe they were. I'm not contesting that. And these comments, by the way, don't mention the Hawaii thing; people were incensed that Johnson wanted to make a thing of Obama's Kenyan ancestry; where he was born wasn't the issue. What I want to know is, why the thing about Hawaii? If the sentence were to read, "These comments mentioning Obama's Kenyan ancestry have been described by...", it would still make the same point, without this perplexing suggestion that being born in Hawaii somehow makes Obama's Kenyan ancestry less... Kenyan? Really, I'm not sure what it's supposed to suggest. Thoughts? Opinions? Tigercompanion25 (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tigercompanion25: I added that as it seemed that some of the sources were arguing that Johnson was claiming Obama was born in Kenya (I don't agree with that analysis of Johnson's comments), but thinking about it that bit should definitely be removed. Thanks for bringing this up here – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 00:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

And thank you for your prompt response! :) Tigercompanion25 (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I've removed that bit now. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 14:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Did Churchill have a bust flap?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Pardon my apparent ignorance, but that question.... well, I never dreamed that anybody would ask a question that was about Churchll and a flap that was somehow connected with something I never dreamed he had: a bust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2C4A:1CB0:A9CE:A447:3E33:BE8B (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

High-brow activities

Section 1.2, the second paragraph includes this: "He and his siblings were encouraged to engage in high-brow activities from a young age"

The source is a printed work so, without ready access to it, surely there should be an indication of the kind of "high-brow activities" that they included.
It might be understood that the term means 'intellectual", so it may be safe to rule out certain activities. Without some clues about them, the term is useless. We are left to guess from a very broad list, even to the point of wondering if they were truly high-brow or merely middle-brow with pretensions to high-brow. Twistlethrop (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

A large part of Boris's public image is his extensive use of Latin (but not Greek) quotations and mythological references in his political pronouncements. This provokes amusement from the press (nowadays mostly graduates) rather than the stupefied reverence shown to the likes of Enoch Powell and Quintin Hogg in the days when most newsmen had left school at 15 or 14. Although he has an honours degree in Classics, it is odd that what he is reported to have said comes from the "O" Level syllabus. Or have his references to the Enneads bypassed our hacks, "While words of learned length, and thundering sound, Amazed the gazing rustics ranged around?" NRPanikker (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boris Johnson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/bir-baba-ocagi-ziyareti-9229598
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aksam.com.tr/yazarlar/obama-ile-boris-johnson-kapisti/haber-510362

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Oxford

I don't know a lot about Wikipedia, and the standards for editing. I came here for quick info. I am amazed at the section on Johnson's time at Oxford, and the pejorative tone used throughout. It is beneath the dignity of an encyclopedia, and has obviously been written by someone with an axe to grind. Regardless of your views on Johnson and his politics, it's just not the point of Wikipedia and I am embarrassed for you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:662B:C100:1884:F4AC:E8A4:B714 (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Would you care to elucidate? This is Paul (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Elucidate? That'll be a tribute to Boris. Well either that or you really are obsessed. The three websites cited in the talk page rather prove the point. One link doesn't work, one site is simply not reliable and seems to be a vehicle for a fairly personal and frankly bizarre vendetta. It would be my contention that the section on Boris at Oxford is lengthy to the point of farce, almost exclusively negative and based on tittle tattle of the first degree. Reading comparative Wikipedia articles (British senior political figures) it seems normal to note the college attended, the subject read and a brief comment about involvement in political activity. Johnson's seems to go into tedious detail about the friends he had, insinuates that his friend. It builds an unnecessary case that he was politically dexterous and frankly a snob (I have no idea if he was, but it obviously is not relevant in a Wikipedia article, and stands out in relative terms). It adds nothing to the article and smacks of bias. Also includes a claim that he was SDP, which is referenced but has no value. Again tittle tattle. "His presidency was not seen as particularly distinguished or memorable,[73] and questions were raised regarding his competency and seriousness". This quote seems to be based on the account of Sonia Purnell, who seems to have an entirely negative view of Johnson and again seems slightly obsessed (judging by the amount she writes about him). She is welcome to her view. But it is neither relevant in this context, and the Wikipedia article is clearly not balanced, pejorative and unencyclopedic. The Wikpedia then goes on to describe how he allegedly lost sleep. Is such lightweight tripe really the level Wikipedia is aiming at? Would it be better if we got some serious editors in to clean up this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:662B:C100:AC12:CBFB:180E:CED3 (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Purnell is Johnson's primary biographer; it is really no surprise that the article should rely on her to some extent. I see no evidence that this section of the article is in contravention of Wikipedia's policies. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No Purnell is not Johnson's primary biographer. There are many. Try Nigel Cawthorne or Andrew Gimson for a slightly different perspective, if anyone is even interested in balance here. Purnell does not even hide her disdain for Johnson. The fact that she is the basis for this article speaks volumes about its value. I don't know all of Wikipedia's policies, but if this article falls anywhere near within them, then Wikipedia is not so much an encyclopedia as a collection of one-eyed prejudices. I suspect this article will be repaired when an editor with a brain comes on the scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:662B:C100:5CB7:DC84:87DA:793A (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Au contraire; Purnell really is Johnson's primary biographer. Hers is the fullest and most in-depth biography of him yet published. Andrew Gimson, a personal friend of Johnson, has also written a shorter and less detailed biography of the politician, and we use that here too. Nigel Cawthorne's biography has been brought out through a vanity press and thus hardly constitutes a Reliable Source for Wikipedia's purposes. Anyway, comments such as "I suspect this article will be repaired when an editor with a brain comes on the scene" reflect that we are now dealing with nothing but a troll, so I suggest that we cease to feed them by ignoring their further comments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Ignore as you like, others will see the value of this article by reading it for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:662B:C100:E5F4:E4F1:5AA4:D325 (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight on Obama criticism?

Roughly four-fifths of the section on Boris' involvement in the Brexit campaign, at the front of a campaign which has changed the planet for better or worse (you decide, but not here of course), is on the Obama controversy.

There is definitely importance in including this in principle, as it did get reactions and it adds to his detractors' belief that Boris is at least jingoistic, but at the moment it looks like a blow-by-blow written by users putting in every news source on what was then a developing story. Of course, what remains (ha ha!) has to be balanced and not favour either his allies or detractors.

I don't know what exactly to cut, and I'm not a fan of being bold on high-traffic articles, so I would like to ask for others' opinions. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed it is excessive, requires trimming Govindaharihari (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Too long; citation overkill

It seems to me this article suffers from WP:CITECLUTTER, contributing to its already bloated length per WP:TOOLONG. I would suggest cutting second and third citations where one is sufficient. - HappyWaldo (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Proteus, you removed a section about the Dispatches investigation without any reasoning in your edit summary. Could you explain why you removed it? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2016

Ancestry

Ancestors of Boris Johnson/Archive 2

8. Ali Kemal Bey 4. Osman Kemal Wilfred Johnson 18. Frank Brun 9. Winifred Brun 19. Margaret Johnson 2. Stanley Johnson 10. Stanley F. Williams 5. Irene Williams 22. Hubert, Baron von Pfeffel (grandson of Prince Paul of Württemberg) 11. Baroness Marie Louise de Pfeffel 23. Helene von Rivière 1. Boris Johnson 6. Sir James Fawcett 3. Charlotte Fawcett 14. Elias Avery Lowe 7. Frances Beatrice Lowe 30. Henry Clinton Porter 15. Helen Tracy Porter 31. Clara Holcombe

DirkBrocky (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

We don't include family trees of an individual's ancestry on Wikipedia articles. Particularly when they are unreferenced and appear to be based on original research. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2016

Please spell "Manhattan" correctly: "Johnson was born on 19 June 1964 at a hospital on Manhatten's Upper East Side..."

Jec2669 (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

HackingDemocracy's recent edits

Over the past few days, User:HackingDemocracy has been repeatedly trying to add a whole section to the end of the article titled "Dispatches investigation"; this section is devoted largely to the 1995 controversy that erupted when Johnson's 1990 phone conversation with Darius Guppy was made public. Given that this section is clearly not appropriate for Wikipedia (for reasons outlined below), it has been removed both by myself and User:Proteus. However, HackingDemocracy has simply edit warred to restore it (here, here, here, and here). I have asked them to cease their edit warring and instead try to build consensus for their addition here at the Talk Page, although thus far they have ignored this request and continued edit warring. Accordingly, I have created this Talk Page section to bring this situation to wider attention and to ensure that it is dealt with.

So to be clear, the reason why this section is inappropriate is threefold. First, most of the information contained within it is already in the article, specifically within the "Political columnist: 1994–99" section. This information simply does not need to be duplicated. Second, this particular controversy does not warrant an entire section all to itself. We avoid having "Criticism" and "Controversy" sections here at Wikipedia, particularly on WP:Biographies of Living Persons, and that is basically what this section is. Third, the establishment of a whole section devoted to criticisms of Johnson pushes us away from the neutral point of view which is required at Wikipedia. If the editor in question feels that there is some important information that is omitted from this article, then they should present it here, so that it can be discussed and a consensus can be achieved regarding where it should be positioned. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

BAFTA nomination

Is it worth mentioning that he was nominated for the British Academy Television Award for Best Entertainment Performance in 2004 for hosting Have I Got News for You?[5] 60.242.1.97 (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

If it's not mentioned in the two biographies about Johnson (although I'd need to check that), then it probably shouldn't be deemed notable enough for inclusion in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Foreign Secretary

Ye Gods, Bloody Stupid Johnson appointed as Foreign Secretary. Satire dead - official. Mr Larrington (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone know why Johnson isn't referred to as "The Right Honourable" on either this page or May ministry? I'm just curious.Nevermore27 (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Boris Johnson will obtain the prefix "The Right Honourable" when he is sworn into the Privy Council. Since all Cabinet Ministers are Privy Councillors, one of the immediate jobs to be done will be to induct Boris Johnson as a Privy Councillor. Once done he will be The Right Hon Boris Johnson PC MPDs1994 (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The forgotten brother

Where is Jo in this Article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.72.18 (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

He is briefly mentioned both in the "Childhood: 1964–77" and "Personal life" sections of this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Mixed English and French descent of father Stanley just another hoax

This article states -

" Stanley was the grandson of the Turkish journalist Ali Kemal on the paternal side,[4] while on his maternal side he was of mixed English and French descent -"

Yet looking for the ancestry of Boris's father Stanley here in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Johnson_(writer) one finds -

Stanley "Johnson was born in 1940 in Penzance, Cornwall, the son of Osman Kemal Wilfred Johnson and Irene Williams, daughter of Stanley F. Williams of Bromley, Kent, by his marriage to Marie Louise de Pfeffel (or Freiin von Pfeffel) in Paris on 15 August 1882."

Which means that Boris Johnson's father Stanley Johnson was the son of Osman Kemal Wilfred Johnson and Irene Williams - who was the daughter of Stanley F. Williams and Marie Louise de Pfeffel (or Freiin von Pfeffel) whom Stanly F. Williams had married in Paris on 15 August 1882. And that in turn means of course that Boris Johnson was indeed the grandson of Stanley F. Williams and Louise de Pfeffel (or Freiin von Pfeffel). And very obviously for that very reason Boris Johnson declares his full name as being Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. And because of this middle insert de Pfeffel this article and many similar articles declare, as quoted above, that on "his maternal side he was of mixed English or French descent".

So the whole "Frenchness" of his maternal descent lies in the French rendering of the name of his maternal grandmother from "Marie Luise von Pfeffel" to "Marie Louise de Pfeffel". But the article about father Stanley continues - "His maternal grandparents", i.e. the parents of Marie Louise de Pfeffel (or Freiin von Pfeffel) were Hubert Freiherr von Pfeffel, born in Munich on 8 December 1843, and wife Helene von Rivière, born on 14 January 1862; he was the son of Karl Freiherr von Pfeffel (Dresden, 22 November 1811 - Munich, 25 January 1890) and wife (m. Augsburg, 16 February 1836) Karolina von Rothenburg (Frankfurt, 28 November 1805 - Frankfurt, 13 February 1872), herself the natural daughter of Prince Paul of Württemberg by Friederike Porth."

These are - with a little bit of doubt about Helene von Rivière - practically all Jerries. - And the "Frenchness" for the maternal descent Boris Johnson's father Stanley is just another hoax in Boris Johnson's biography. No "Frenchness" at all. Just a French rendering of the German nobility prefix "von" into the French nobility prefix "de". - I am of partly German descent myself and I hate the idea that Johnson is not only of Turkish, Jewish, American and English but also of German descent. But that is obviously the case - while no reason for a French descent of his is anywhere to be seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.118.248 (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, but we do base the content of Wikipedia articles on the information in WP:Reliable sources rather than WP:Original Research. That being the case, I'm not really sure if we can use this argument for the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This is similar to his alleged belonging to the upper class. He is of at best middle class origin but got scholarships first for Eton and then for Oxford which brought him into contact with upper class youngsters without being one himself. - The whole so called Frenchness of his ancestry resides in the fact that the half Turkish born father of Boris's father Stanley had married the German Baroness [lowest Rank of German nobility] Marie-Luise Freiin von Pfeffel in Paris and the name of the bride seems therefore to have been entered in the marriage certificate in French spelling. If the marriage would have been contracted in Tokyo the certificate could have had the name in Katakana - without turning Freiin von Pfeffel into a Japanese. - Here is your reliable source. - http://thepeerage.com/p47425.htm - Scroll down to Pfeffel. - The Frenchness of Johnson's origin lies in the changing of the German word "von" into the French word "de" - which quite obviously has never been used by the German family of Pfeffels. - Johnson himself must know this as he has repeatedly touted to have searched his ancestry in great detail. But he boldfacely and snobbishly gives his name as Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. - Based on an incorrect spelling.

The Boris Johnson biography is full of inaccuracies or outright falsehoods. Like his belonging to the upper class, his French or even Russian ancestry - one based on some spelling mistakes and the other on the fact that one of his eight great-grandfathers had a Russian passport and probably could speak Russian. And also the fable of Johnson speaking fluently three languages. - He speaks English very fluently - and sarcastically and offensively, as is well known. His French is rather bulky and halted but far from fluent https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OzSvvuCgJ4. And I did not see anywhere any evidence which would be the third language that he speaks fluently or rather the second - as French is not. The third language he speaks fluently can certainly not be German because here he proves that he cannot even correctly articulate just three simple German words in isolation. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3581037/Don-t-deafen-voters-Boris-Johnson-breaks-song-GERMAN-rails-Little-Englander-jibes-against-Brexit-supporters-EU-referendum-battle.html. He seems actually to be rather ungifted for languages - at least modern ones - by also proving to be unable to intelligibly parrot just about six words in Russian. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2tas63

Though it may be equally undesirable for Johnson to have quite extensive German ancestry as it is certainly distasteful and embarassing for Germans to have to recognise a person like him as a distant relative - it is still clear that the quoted passage of this article - " Stanley was the grandson of the Turkish journalist Ali Kemal on the paternal side,[4] while on his maternal side he was of mixed English and French descent -" is false or, more directly, a lie. As it seems to be as unpalatable for him and other Englishmen as it is for Germans to mention the German ancestry of Alexander Boris Johnson it would be the most practicable way just to skip any reference to the maternal ancestry of father Stanley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.99.122 (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Winsford, Somerset (Exmoor)/Winsford, Cheshire

The family farm that Boris lived in as a child is ' at Nethercote, near Winsford in Exmoor', however, Winsford links to Winsford Cheshire, rather than Winsford Somerset (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winsford,_Somerset), which is near Exmoor. Additionally, the image captioned 'Johnson spent much of his childhood near to Winsford in Exmoor' is once again, of Winsford Cheshire, and not Winsford Somerset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.56.127 (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

A very good point. I've made the necessary corrections. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Purnell Book

Just had a proper look at the first article for the first time. Not terribly impressed by the negativity of it, and that seemingly every negative statement is referenced by Sonia Purnell's book. Not balanced. I will take some time to remove these in the coming days if no one has any objections. As far as I'm concerned, the article should be written neutrally, with any criticism enclosed in a 'criticism' section. Does anyone disagree?Ajdsmith (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I strongly object to the idea of mass removals although would be happy to discuss particular sentences where you think that we stray away from a balanced perspective. Moreover, it should be stressed Purnell's book is (at present) the most thoroughly researched biography of Johnson yet published; arguably, one of the reasons that her book actually deals with so much criticism of Johnson is that he has, by British standards, been a pretty controversy-prone politician. Bear in mind that our WP:NPOV policy doesn't mean that we must keep an article 'neutral' by balancing out any 'negative' information with 'positive' information and vice versa; rather it means that we must be neutral in presenting the information about the subject present in the WP:Reliable sources, and at present Purnell's book is perhaps the best reliable source available. Further, Wikipedia has a policy of studiously avoiding "Criticism" or "Controversy" sections when it comes to biographical articles so again I would strongly oppose the addition of any such section. Rather, criticisms of Johnson should be incorporated within the general text, as they are here. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2016

Boris Johnson is NOT a privy counsellor and therefore not Rt Honerable till he is made one

2A02:C7F:6C0E:4300:A1CC:C661:43C:FADA (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Already done Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Daily Mail and Mirror as sources on this article?

In a spirit of collegiality,I thought I would take up User:Midnightblueowl's suggestion to discuss why this is a good edit, bearing in mind WP:BLPSOURCES' recommendation to avoid using tabloid sources on BLPs. --John (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I've removed these poor sources again. They should never have been placed there to begin with. --John (talk) 06:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi John; I wasn't the editor who originally added this information to the article, but I can see some validity in retaining it. While we should of course be very wary when using tabloids and other more dubious sources, I believe that this instance is one where we can make an exception. That source is cited because it provides a useful quote in which Johnson describes his personal ideology; this, in my opinion, is acceptable, even under WP:BLPSOURCES. If we were relying on this unreliable source for, say, commentary on Johnson, then that would be a different matter. Do we have any other opinions on this issue? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Currently showing to me with "Rt Honourable" prefix title Balch Mike (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Popular?

To my mind, to say someone is popular is expressing a POV- to use the word twice in a section rings alarm bells. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

But we have reliable sources supporting claims that Johnson is popular. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

True. But popular to whom. Having worked in a school, there is the kid who is popular with the class pondlife but causing serious concern to the staff and hated by the students he is disrupting. The reference is easy to find but irrelevant unless it states the reference group. The alarm bells continue to ring. --ClemRutter (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring primarily to the use of the term in the "Eton and Oxford: 1977–87" section? If so, I've removed once such appearance, which is fairly superfluous. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The Right Honourable

I have watched the edits to and fro on this matter.

Whilst it is accepted that Boris Johnson, as a Cabinet Member will be sworn into the Privy Council, thus giving him the prefix title of "The Right Honourable", it is not presently correct.

Could this be rectified to show the correct status and given protected status ?

Balch Mike (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC) Balch Mike (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

He is listed as a member on the Privy Council website (https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/privy-council/privy-council-members/privy-counsellors/) and styled Rt Hon by FCO (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-ministerial-appointments-at-the-foreign-and-commonwealth-office) William Avery (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Balch Mike this WP:RS confirms his status as Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-ministerial-appointments-at-the-foreign-and-commonwealth-office Plantsurfer 23:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I have been doing some extensive homework on this as I had misinterpreted the position on this. In this instance I was wrong :( In addition to the above I have also been able to confirm the prefix as can be referenced below:

Extracted from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdf Appointment of ministers

• 3.18  Senior ministers are required to take oaths of office under the Promissory Oaths Act 1868 and all Cabinet members are made Privy Counsellors.

Balch Mike (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)