Talk:Sadiq Khan/Archive 1

MP expenses scandal
Why is it that the references to this MP fraudulently claiming expenses on promotional material have been removed? 86.63.26.124 (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reinstated this paragraph as this is an issue covered for all other MPs - maybe it should have its own paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richylondon (talk • contribs) 21:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * From the recent coverage, this appears to be merely a technical violation, with the Standards Authority saying it could be construed as urging addressees to support him. That is very different from saying he "lauded" himself. In any event, the text as written did not reflect the source and was not written from a neutral point of view. On top of that, it is not clear that this violation is significant enough for inclusion, seeing as though the authorities thought it a minor enough infraction they didn't announce their conclusions publicly (Khan did). -Rrius (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

But certainly merits inclusion in this page given the furure over MPs exepnses - what is especilly relevant is that despite being censured the first time - he proceeded to make the same mistake again.

It should be left in but I have no objections to a different supporting source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richylondon (talk • contribs) 07:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Its worthless anf not noteworthy at all, you are the only person that is repeatedly adding it, in fact this envelope s#tory is you whole wikipedia edits since april, multiple users have removed it and found it to be not noteworthy. Off2riorob (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition to the one we were talking about, there is also one about repaying £500 for letters that had a Labour rose them and one about £2,500 (IIRC) for greeting cards that were paid after a dishonest resubmission. The former is even more trivial than the original technical violation we were talking about, but I think the other one is a close call. -Rrius (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Any significant expense repayments are surely notable, particularly if expenses have been abused for party political purposes. It really is concerning to see such information removed for no good reason, and I notice that one editor doing so appears to be a single purpose account.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Who does he shadow
Clegg or Ken Clarke?Phd8511 (talk) 10:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

London Marathon Tweet
I added this section as it was widely reported in a significant number of mainstream newspapers, and attracted considerable attention including on his appearance on Have I Got News For You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahambrown607 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Sadiq Khan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121108231625/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/pound150000-for-police-raid-on-kurdish-pinter-play-726752.htm to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/pound150000-for-police-raid-on-kurdish-pinter-play-726752.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/would-jeremy-corbyn-prefer-george-galloway-to-be-mayor-of-london/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 May 2016
He is already done with his acceptance speech, please add following in the infobox:

 Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 23:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The page has been unprotected. Nakon  01:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested change of "Mayoral Election" to "mayoral election"
"Mayoral Election" is not a proper noun or proper name, even in the context of "the 2016 mayoral election"; see the article for London mayoral election, 2016. I would like to request that "Mayoral Election", which appears in the intro, be changed to "mayoral election". Tigercompanion25 (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I've never encountered a "page protection" this severe. I'm an experienced editor with thousands of edits but must nonetheless request the intervention of an administrator to correct a simple capitalization error. And all because a few editors have been a bit premature in calling him "Mayor". This protection seems vastly disproportionate to the problem. "But it's only until tomorrow", you say. All the more reason to not block virtually all editing on the page while waiting for one aspect of the page (the certification of the results) to be settled tomorrow. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I did it myself now that the protection's been lifted. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Was not Transport Secretary
A small mistake needs correcting under 3.1 Government minister: in the second paragraph, after "promotion" (from being Minister of State for Communities - without attending Cabinet meetings - to becoming Minister of State for Transport, attending Cabinet, and member of the Privy Council), "as Transport Secretary" should be deleted. The Secretary of State for Transport, or Transport Secretary, was Geoff Hoon.

Fbrutsch (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Unsupported and misleading statement
The current wiki article claims that "For his first fifteen months' service in HM Government, he chose not to draw a ministerial incremental salary, having made sufficient money as a lawyer" which suggests that he did not take the salary increase following his promotion to government. This statement is not supported by any evidence / citation, furthermore the article linked in the same paragraph merely suggests that he did not take a £1000 increase (for all MPs that year) but was still taking a ministerial salary of £104,050. Totally misleading! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popoqoq (talk • contribs) 17:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrong tense
The initial sentence states Sadiq Khan has served as mayor of London. This misses the point. Sadiq Khan is currently serving as mayor of London. Change the tense to present progressive, for as far as I can tell (no native speaker), present perfect indicates presently 'finished'/completed things. Either change this article or change Barack Obama's, which states that he is serving as president of the United States of America.

I would have fixed this myself, but I am not allowed to edit this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.35.244.44 (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no problem here. "who has served... since" works fine in this context. English can be a perplexing language, and some of its rules don't seem to make much sense to non-native speakers, but that's just the way it is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * He is not actually officially the mayor until Monday morning, as explained here and by the relevant legislation. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Controversy section?
Considering we could fill a separate article on this man's controversies - where is the section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.19.4 (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as I understand they're mostly limited to Zac Goldsmith's election campaign, and the Conservatives have pretty much disaffiliated themselves with that now that the campaign's finished - the article on the election has plenty of information on it so I don't think a section on his main page would be that necessary (though perhaps the Conservative campaign against him is worth a mention in the candidacy section here). 14:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.117.171 (talk)

Protected edit request on 6 May 2016
He's won the election.

90.207.191.240 (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

He's the Mayor of London. Look at this link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2016-36232392 Govindaharihari (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The page has been unprotected. Nakon  01:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sadiq Khan election
In the article, , it should be noted that "...election attracted international attention because of his status as the first Muslim mayor of a major Western city" is incorrect. It should be noted that the Calgary mayor, (in Alberta, Canada) Naheed Nenshi  assumed office in 2010. Calgary is certainly a major western city and Nenshi deserves the attribution of 'first Muslim mayor' [of a major Western city].204.83.110.173 (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Plus Alija Behmen, a Sunni Muslim, was mayor of Sarajevo from 2009 to 2013. —Pinnerup (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Religion
Sadiq Khan is a Sunni Muslim; Source: In These Times

For this reason please change his religion to: Sunni Islam

Religion: Sunni Islam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.228.144.83 (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The reference does not look entirely reliable... Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I seen many links saying he is a Muslim and himself saying that also but nothing about Sunni affiliation. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Another source: http://www.sadiqkhan.org.uk


 * "The event was opened with prayers from Imam Nadeem, from the Sunni Muslim Association based in Tooting."


 * This website is: Promoted by DJ Bellamy on behalf of Sadiq Khan and Tooting Labour Party, all at 273 Balham High Road, London, SW17 7BD.


 * How many sources do you like to see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.228.144.83 (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * None of those you offer are convincing me - have you got one where he says - I am a Sunni muslim? - the press and anyone that is not a sunni muslim are not bothered, he is a Muslim, that is it really unless - and he is not even a regular mosque attendee, where does he practice? . Govindaharihari (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is this mentioned in the first line of the article and not placed under "Personal life"? David Cameron's article does not begin "...is an Evangelical Christian British politician..."; it should read "Sadiq Khan is a British Labour Party politician"— religion is not the most defining facet of his career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.128.254 (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, sunni muslim should not be in the header intro at all. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Khan was Agnostic
In 2010 Khan stated on the BBC's Question Time that, when it was suggested he was a Muslim, he was an "agnostic" hence not a Muslim (obviously). The source provided is the exact QT episode air date and a YT video of Khan stating he was agnostic (thus not a Muslim as that's a contradiction in terms). This information is informative and has biographical importance; it shows Khan was agnostic at one point of his life then came (back?) to religion. It also shows he has had a religious journey, but more importantly is a factional point - sourced by his own words from his own mouth. I realise some editors may want to remove this information to push readers into thinking he may be a religious extremist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MKPoosh (talk • contribs) 16:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sadiq has stated that he is certainly not agnostic about his faith and was referring to his position on the nikab on his website No credible third party source has suggested Sadiq Khan has ever been anything other than a Muslim. Snide remarks about other editors intentions reflect very bad on you when you are wrong. Dtellett (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You cannot be both an agonistic and a Christian/Muslim/Hindu it's a self contradiction. You cannot be "agnostic against this or that". Khan was asked "as a Muslim" and he replied "I am an agnostic": he was very clear. People change their beliefs all the time and it's interesting to see the evolution. "No credible third party source has suggested Sadiq Khan has ever been anything other than a Muslim" - and yet he said it on live TV. The source is there. If you want to keep deleting a factual item regarding Khan's evolution of beliefs (which, actually, explains why he supports gay marriage) then there is clearly nothing I can do. Khan replied to his own comment, and it would have been far better to point out that he claimed he was misinterpreted and link his response and allow readers to determine whether or not that is a believable response instead of arbitrarily deciding to take Khan's position .MKPoosh (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You appear to be not understanding. Again, in the video, the presenter asks Khan his position on women and religious dress. He replies he is "agnostic". Arguably, that could possible be misunderstood to mean he was stating he is agnostic about religion - but it could also mean he was stating he was agnostic about religious dress. He has clarified that it was certainly the second and all the evidence supports that. I do not see the link to his support for marriage equality. AusLondonder (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you are not understanding. You cannot be agnostic about a dress. We all know what being agnostic means. Stop trying to redefine words.

Thank you for your response, it's appreciated. I do understand perfectly though. Khan's reply is not very credible as the idea of being agnostic about a religious piece of dress is nonsensical - as agnosticism is the claim one cannot know the existence of God's or not thus has no opinion - is the statement "I'm agnostic about the Holy Spirit" coherent: no. It makes literally no sense for him to claim he is agnostic about a certain rule as that quickly snowballs into how he can know any religious knowledge. The presenter asserted Khan was a Muslim and Khan "corrected" him by saying "I'm an agnostic" this clearly caused a stir and he "corrected himself" days later as stated above - but this is an encyclopedia and should include the full account of this "incident" not simply accept Khan's reply which may or may not be true (not for one to decide). All information should be recorded for historical purposes and the readers can decide for themselves the truth of the matter, surely. Maybe Khan is telling the truth, maybe he told the truth when he said he was agnostic and is being a politician - I don't think that's for me to decide: surely the function of this website is to present accurate information and allow others to decide, if the point of contention is still important but un-resolvable.MKPoosh (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Whilst the most common use of the term agnostic relates to someone not knowing whether a particular God exists or not, other uses are possible. The Oxford English Dictionary states that another meaning is "(In a non-religious context) having a doubtful or non-committal attitude towards something" eg "until now I’ve been fairly agnostic about electoral reform" AusLondonder (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I point you in the direction of WP:DISPUTE which sets out methods to resolve content disputes if you wish to seek input from others. AusLondonder (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Frankly with no credible sources having ever suggested he has ever been agnostic about religion despite him being a prominent public figure noted particularly for his faith, I don't think an RFC or any other form of dispute resolution would be worthwhile. Wikipedia is not a place for editors to push their own novel interpretations of primary sources, particularly not when said interpretation relies on apparent ignorance of the meaning of the words used. Dtellett (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Not the first Muslim Mayor of a major Western city
It is stated in the article that various press sources claim that Mr. Khan is the first muslim mayor of a major Western city. While the press sources may claim this, the accuracy of this claim can be debated. His colleague Ahmed Aboutaleb, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Aboutaleb, has been mayor of Rotterdam since 2008. While Rotterdam is not in the same league as London, based in size, history, and economical importance (it is home to Europe's largest port for example) it certainly could be argued to be a major western city. Moreover Mr. Aboutaleb background and career has important parallels with Mr. Khan's background and career. But more than to debate what would qualify as a major European city, I think it is important to mention Mr. Khan is not the only muslim mayor, as this as context gives a more honest overview of the acceptance of muslim politicians in Western societies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.95.132 (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Presume that Calgary would also be a major Western city ... Naheed Nenshi became mayor of Calgary (Alberta Canada) in October 25, 2010. Naheed Nenshi was also the first straight Muslim Mayor of a major city to be Grand Marshall of the Calgary Pride  (24.76.216.245 (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC))


 * Also Alija Behmen, a Sunni Muslim, was mayor of Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina, from 2009 to 2013. —Pinnerup (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sarajevo is not a major western city and Calgary is in Canada, isn't it? Govindaharihari (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess there's a question about what is "Western" Yes, Calgary is in Canada; I think everyone would agree that is western! On the other hand, although European, Sarajevo is a predominantly Muslim city, in a predominantly Muslim country that was once a part of the Ottoman empire, isn't it? I think that means that having a Muslim mayor would be somewhat less notable in that case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.52.20.163 (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Cordoba in Spain was at one point the largest city in the world. During that time the entire administration was Muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.78.51 (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Plenty of reliable sources state that Khan is the first mayor of a major Western city, so that information should be included in the article. Without wishing to belittle the cities in question, neither Calgary not Rotterdam could be considered a major Western city in the same league as New York City, London, or Paris. They simply don't have the population size or socio-political influence to be considered "major". Similarly, while Sarajevo is European, like much of Eastern Europe it would not be considered "Western" (which tends to encompass Western Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). Similarly, while parts of the Iberian peninsula were once under Islamic control, it would be misleading to deem them "Western" in the form that they existed at that period. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl Rotterdam is a major city in Europe with over a million people, second largest in Holland. Sarajevo is a European capital. The only thing which is misleading is to include patently false information because a particular journal is deemed "reliable". We cannot "adapt" the content of a false statement/mistake in a source to make it less false. Therefore it should best be excluded. Also, the (your) definition of Western is controversial. Limiting the West to European countries which were not under Soviet influence (not sure if you wish to exclude Greece and Cyprus as well) and non-hispanic white North America is not something which will be deemed acceArguyptable by many people. Asilah1981 (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The only patently false claim being introduced here is the idea that the non capital cities of Rotterdam and Calgary are remotely relevant to the issue of whether Khan is the first Muslim to become mayor of a major Western capital. I don't think there's much controversy about not including a 300k city situated in a small Eastern Bloc state rarely if ever considered to be economically, culturally or politically Western as a "major Western capital" either. If you wish to argue the widely-accepted definitions of Western used by Wikipedia and its sources are "not something which will be deemed acceptable", may I suggest there are more appropriate talk pages to start on.Dtellett (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Rotterdam and Calgary are not major Western capitals. Their population is incomparable to London. Rotterdam has 619,879. London has 8,538,689. Calgary has 1,096,833. Sarajevo is a non-EU, non-EEA city in the former Eastern Bloc. We should report what the sources say. AusLondonder (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Here in Wikipedia we go by what WP:RS say and they are saying that Khan is the first Muslim mayor of a major western city.-- obi2canibe talk contr 10:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * obi2canibe Actually, no. No source says "major western city". Major western capital is fine, if we exclude Spain's Islamic period.Asilah1981 (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, they do: AOL/PA; CNN; Evening Standard; FT; Herald; LA Times; LBC; Mail/PA; Mirror; NBC/AP; News Statesman; RT; and The Sun. Your second point shows that you have not understood how Wikipedia works.-- obi2canibe talk contr 14:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * obi2canibe, no need to be a smart ass. I know full well how wikipedia works and there are multiple ways of dealing with media reporting false or questionable statements such as this one. It happens all the time. Asilah1981 (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It's annoying to be proven wrong.-- obi2canibe talk contr 15:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2016
Birth Place Tooting London to United Arab Emirates

95.151.204.199 (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Hi He wasn't born in the UAE, he was born in Tooting, London. Your edit request is factually incorrect. st170e talk  14:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation
How do you pronounce his name in Urdu? Even the English pronunciation is not mentioned in this article. --2.245.200.11 (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit-war
, you're currently at 6RR. The material added is rather slanted against Khan ("rejected by the public") and unsourced. I would really appreciate if you would stop reverting. GABgab 21:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Aside from being unsourced and pushing a particular POV (which is particularly problematic on a BLP), the information that they are repeatedly adding in is, factually-speaking, totally nonsense. They are taking the pre-existing "the third largest personal mandate in Europe[12]" and appending "until the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum where more Londoners voted to leave the EU than voted for Sadiq Khan who campaigned for continuation of EU membership and was rejected by the public on 23 June 2016." The reason that it is nonsense is that the EU membership referendum didn't give any individual a "personal mandate" at all; it was a referendum on an issue, not the election of a single individual. It would be the equivalent of someone stating "Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister for eleven years until Queen Elizabeth II became the longest reigning monarch in British history". It's comparing two completely unrelated things and jumbling them into a whole lot of nonsense. Either NotAnnCoulter is deeply politically illiterate or they are deliberately trolling; I suspect the latter. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * are you going to respond at all or merely continue vandalising Wikipedia? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The debates have finished. Votes were counted. Final is final. 1,513,232 > 1,310,143. Discussion has closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotAnnCoulter (talk • contribs) 21:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like they may well be politically illiterate after all... do they really believe that the EU referendum invalidates an elected official's "personal mandate"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * NotAnnCoulter has been blocked from editing for seven days for their constant edit warring and vandalism of this article. Fingers crossed we won't be seeing them again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone have newer images?
I think he might have aged a bit since the infobox photo was taken! His hairstyle is different, but apart from that, that's about it. It would be nice if someone could contribute a newer image. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2016
Should it not be on the first line: Sadiq Khan, PC? He is a member of the Privy Council after all.

Proof: https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/privy-council/privy-council-members/privy-counsellors/

86.163.147.173 (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

University?
If he began higher education at the age of 18, would it not have been at North London Polytechnic rather than the University of North London (founded 1992, when he was 21-22)? CulturalSnow (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * An interesting point, though it would appear that the University of North London had been constituted in time for his degree to be awarded by them, even if it was one of the constituent polytechnics he started his course at. Media coverag, Sadiq's own bio and a press releases from the University of North London's successor (which notably states that he was awarded an Honours degree and gives its classification, suggesting they checked) all have him as alumni of that institution rather than the poly. Even though it appears you're correct that it was the polytechnic when he started, the only reliable source I can find attesting to it is a passing mention in this article so I think we can stick with what we've got Dtellett (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Sunni Muslim?
The statement that he is a Sunni Muslim is based on one ref. It is not clear if this is true and I think a more reliable reference is needed if we are to keep the word Sunni in.--الدبوني (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Forced women to stand in the back during rally
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/16/women-sent-back-khan-remain-speech/ 71.182.247.103 (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Breitbart is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes Dtellett (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 one external links on Sadiq Khan. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024053506/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rajen/Jadhav-v-SS/index.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rajen/Jadhav-v-SS/index.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.christiankhan.co.uk/ViewNews.asp?NewsID=15
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://lexisweb.co.uk/cases/2009/January/Austin-and-another-v-Metropolitan-Police-Commissioner
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spectator.co.uk/archive/features/14489/part_2/parliamentarian-of-the-year.thtml?SelectedIssueDate=19
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4787119.stm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7142779.stm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7224786.stm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/22/uksecurity.police?gusrc=rss&feed=uknews
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/local/wandsworthnews/8167355.EXCLUSIVE___I_m_backing_Ed___says_MP_Khan
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7579476/General-election-2010-Transport-minister-Sadiq-Khan-in-election-expenses-row.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/8192570/MPs-expenses-17-MPs-were-re-elected-after-secret-deals-on-expenses.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/8192581/MPs-expenses-the-secret-deals-revealed.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/09/secretly-resolved-mps-expenses-cases-made-public
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8569397.stm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4388359/Minister-criticises-Pope-for-pardoning-Holocaust-denial-bishop.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/twitter/5467688/MP-Sadiq-Khan-announces-his-Transport-Minister-appointment-on-Twitter.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.standard.co.uk/news/minister-all-mps-should-give-up-their-1000-pay-rise-6707031.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/local/wandsworthnews/8167341.EXCLUSIVE___Bitter_sweet__promotion_for_Sadiq_Khan_MP/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.standard.co.uk/standard-home/londons-1000-most-influential-people-2010-politics-6536029.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fabians.org.uk/executive-committee-mainmenu-64/executive-committee

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Place of birth?
The article says he was born in St George's in Tooting and in the main article it says born in Tooting. But St. George's hospital was on Hyde Park Corner in 1970. Building on the Tooting site didn't begin until 1973 according to the St George's page on this site. Worthr (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The St George's Wikipedia entry does acknowledge that St George's took over two existing smaller hospitals on the Tooting site before the new hospital was built in the 1970s. St George's own website confirms that "The Grove Fever Hospital and Fountain Hospital in Tooting become part of the St George’s Group" in 1954 so it's likely that Sadiq Khan's details are as recordedDtellett (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Personal mandate in Europe
It is said: 'His mandate is the currently also third largest of any politician in Europe'. This is disputable.

Of course Mr. Putin has a larger mandate according to the last elections in Russia - though I assume some will want to question the election process in Russia, but it seems that he carries a large support among the Russian people that is in line with the election results.

Secondly, in the Dutch elections for the second chamber members are voted for on personal title (and additional members get assigned by 'redistributing' excess votes along party lines). For example Mr. Rutte, currently acting ('demissionair') prime minister, has been elected into the second chamber with more votes for him in person than Mr. Khan received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:4800:681C:F0A6:FD4F:C67A:761 (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Fatwa
An editor has deleted the following:
 * There was a fatwa put out against him, in which an Imam declared him to be no longer a Muslim; he had been given police advice on protection.

The source (published 16 April 2016) says:
 * He said he had been singled out by extremists – and been given police advice on protection – because of his liberal views, particularly on same-sex marriage. “There are people in Tooting who no longer talk to me because of it. When I was first elected I had all sorts of problems from these extremists. There was a fatwa put out against me. I’m the person with the plan in relation to fighting extremism.”

The source does mention the fatwa - though it is not clear whether this was when he was first elected a councillor in 1994, or when he was first elected an MP in 2005. A fatwa is a nonbinding but authoritative legal opinion regarding Islamic law. The source does not specify the nature of the fatwa. So the claim that an Imam declared Khan to be no longer a Muslim is unsupported by the citation.

It is not clear when Khan was given "police advice on protection"; it might have been any time between 1994 and 2016.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph in the lede
The following paragraph in the lede is mostly unsupported:
 * Khan's focus on intercommunity cohesion has been praised by supporters of interfaith dialogue, while opponents have criticised his willingness to "share a platform" with fundamentalist Islamic clerics. His work to improve relations between Muslim communities and wider British society has seen him receive security threats from both Islamist and far-right activists.

Manual of Style/Lead section says "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But where does the article say that people have praised his work on intercommunity cohesion?
 * And where does the article talk about him being criticised for sharing a platform with fundamentalist Islamic clerics?
 * It does mention in the article that he claims to have been threatened by Muslims because of his support for homosexual marriage - that is not the same as working "to improve relations between Muslim communities and wider British society".
 * It does mention in the article that far-right activists have expressed disapproval of him - but that is not the same as them threatening him, and the reason they expressed disapproval of him was because he is a Muslim, not because he is working "to improve relations between Muslim communities and wider British society".

Links to Baber Ahmad
There seems to be nothing on his links to convicted terrorist Baber Ahmed, his campaigning for his release and at the same time calling him a "friend" (subsequently distancing himself since Baber's guilty plea). Baber Ahmed has said they met and shook hands, after his release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.174 (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please show links to reliable sources to support what you say.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is an interview on the BBC in which Babar Ahmad denies any particular close friendship. See video, starting at 04:12. The accompanying text by the BBC on that page also quotes a spokesperson for Khan as saying: "in his role as Chair of the human rights group Liberty, Sadiq Khan campaigned against the unfair UK-US extradition treaty and for Babar Ahmad to be tried in the UK. This was a campaign supported by MPs from all parties, including Boris Johnson and Zac Goldsmith." This is corroborated by Ahmad in the interview. Regarding meeting and shaking hands, Ahmad says in the video (starting at 06:03): "I just bumped into him. I shook his hand." Ahmad's response to the question at 06:27 makes it clear that Khan did not particularly react to this chance meeting, other than by being "polite and courteous as always", so it is important not to mention the handshake out of context in a way that might imply that it had special significance.
 * In my view, the fact that the campaign had cross-party support makes it substantially less noteworthy in relation to Khan than it would have been if the parties had divided over this issue. There is a brief mention in the article already about a bugged phone conversation, and I don't think it warrants saying any more, just as it is not mentioned in the articles about Boris Johnson and Zac Goldsmith. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Official website
In the infobox and the external links section, it says that Mr. Khan's official website is http://www.sadiqkhan.org.uk/. When I click on the link I get a 404 page not found error. Has that website been taken down? And if yes, what's the correct official website? http://www.sadiq.london/ perhaps? — Mudwater (Talk) 00:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It's in his Twitter bio, so it looks like that's correct. I updated the links in the sidebar/external links. --ChiveFungi (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks! — Mudwater (Talk) 01:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sadiq Khan. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007132021/http://www.christiankhan.co.uk/ViewNews.asp?NewsID=35 to http://www.christiankhan.co.uk/ViewNews.asp?NewsID=35
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/twitter/5467688/MP-Sadiq-Khan-announces-his-Transport-Minister-appointment-on-Twitter.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150831190135/http://www.bindmans.com/our-people/profile/saadia-khan to http://www.bindmans.com/our-people/profile/saadia-khan

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sadiq Khan. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090616124012/http://www.spectator.co.uk/archive/features/14489/part_2/parliamentarian-of-the-year.thtml?SelectedIssueDate=19%20November%202005 to http://www.spectator.co.uk/archive/features/14489/part_2/parliamentarian-of-the-year.thtml?SelectedIssueDate=19%20November%202005

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Left Wing???
'Situated on the political left, [...]'

Citation needed please.

' Khan was awarded the "Newcomer of the Year Award" at the 2005 Spectator Parliamentarian of the Year Awards "for the tough-mindedness and clarity with which he has spoken about the very difficult issues of Islamic terror". '

Beingsshepherd (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC) he is in the Labour Party which is a left-wing party besides being against Islamic terror does not make you right-wing I know about assuming good-will but others would say you are putting Islamaphobic bias onto Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadiqKhanFan (talk • contribs) 14:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Part and Parcel Comment
The comment by Sadiq is certainly well-documented amongst the MSM and is one of the most significant things Mr. Khan has said. I can find no mention of this quote anywhere in the article. TorontonianOnlines (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What some people claim he said, and what he said are different.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Still, I see no reason why the controversy ought to be left unmentioned - no matter the context (which should probably be mentioned AAMOF TorontonianOnlines (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

He said what he said. The fact that it's neither mentioned nor is many of his other statements like referring to muslims who would report to the police if they knew someone who would commit a terror act as Uncle Toms proves how biased and agenda driven Wikipedia isOSB95 (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Part and Parcel Comment
The comment by Sadiq is certainly well-documented amongst the MSM and is one of the most significant things Mr. Khan has said. I can find no mention of this quote anywhere in the article. TorontonianOnlines (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What some people claim he said, and what he said are different.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Still, I see no reason why the controversy ought to be left unmentioned - no matter the context (which should probably be mentioned AAMOF TorontonianOnlines (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

He said what he said. The fact that it's neither mentioned nor is many of his other statements like referring to muslims who would report to the police if they knew someone who would commit a terror act as Uncle Toms proves how biased and agenda driven Wikipedia isOSB95 (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Lack of Female Input on Wikipedia
On July 12, 2018 at 7:55 am, he tweeted his concerns about the lack of female editors on Wikipedia, as well as his concern that there are too many biographies of males on Wikipedia compared to the number of females. I wasn't sure where we should place this on his page. Perhaps under advocacy or personal causes? I might also suggest that those women editors of this page might want to sign that they are female; or alternately, his gender could be changed to female to correct this wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:C002:D83A:F4C8:2DCD:1222:5CC8 (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I thought that might be a troll, esp. as the two or three sites I saw first were right-wing, but there's some truth to it. - there's loads of detail there, here's a bit. "it's the fifth most visited website in the world, and the first port of call for those of us in search of information about a famous person or historical event. But did you know that only 17 per cent of Wikipedia's biographies are about women? It’s a woefully inaccurate reflection of women’s achievements - and it has to change.

That's why, during this year’s London Tech Week, which starts today, I have set up an ‘Edit-a-thon’ at Bloomberg’s office in the capital to try and help redress the balance.

Schoolgirls from across the city will be joining forces with Wikipedia’s experts and women in the tech industry to create a surge in new pages about women, and to add more detail to existing ones." Doug Weller  talk 20:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2018
It says Sadiq Kahn was born in St Georges Hospital in Tooting in 1970. It didn't exist. Building started in 1976. In the Wikipedia page for St. Georges it states it was opened in 1976??? lol

Where was he born then? And..the article is incorrect. ;) 2A02:C7F:C20A:AB00:D082:5CDC:73:699D (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As it first opened in 1733, the article has it right. Doug Weller  talk 20:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as per there is nothing to be done here. NiciVampireHeart 09:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2019
This is an update. Please add to the awards section

Six months after his election as the MP for Tooting, the Spectator awarded Khan Newcomer of the Year https://www.spectator.co.uk/2005/11/parliamentarian-of-the-year/

In 2017, he was awarded an Honorary Doctorate from the University of Law. https://universitybusiness.co.uk/Article/the-university-of-law-awards-sadiq-khan/

In 2018, he became an Honorary Fellowship by The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/knowledge-landing-page/riba-honorary-fellowships-2018-announced

In 2019, Khan became an Honorary Bencher of Middle Temple Inn. https://www.middletemple.org.uk/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=40086 Mischabearton (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Sceptre (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2019
Final line of the overview is controversial and unreferenced - it should either be referenced or removed:

"the perception that he is an opportunist who makes U-turns on policy for political advantage." 81.111.247.140 (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It is in line with Manual of Style/Lead section, which says "The lead serves as an overview of the article and a summary of its most important contents."  If you look at Sadiq Khan you will see what content is being summarised by that sentence.  Toddy1 (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2019
This is an update. Please add to the air quality section:

In 2019, at the C40 World Mayors Summit in Copenhagen. London won the C40 Cities Bloomberg Philanthropies Award for the ULEZ. https://www.c40.org/press_releases/c40-awards-2019

This is an update. Please add to the awards section:

In 2019, he was awarded 'Politician of the Year' in the annual Political and Public Life Awards organised by the 'Asian Voice' publication. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/london-mayor-sadiq-khan-named-uk-politician-of-the-year/articleshow/68331014.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

In December 2019, Khan was recognised as DIVA Magazine 'Ally of the Year' in their Rainbow Honours for his work with London's LGBTQ+ communities. https://divamag.co.uk/2019/12/05/best-of-lgbqti-britain-celebrated-at-rainbow-honours-%F0%9F%8C%88/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mischabearton123 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: None of the awards appear notable and they are all supported by references from the organizations giving them. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

London's first
Should the WP:LEAD of this article not mention that Khan is London's first Muslim mayor? He was widely described as such when he won the election in international media.VR talk  19:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Legal cases section
It's a bit excessive. It reads more like a bio piece on a lawyer's site. Many of the refs don't even mention Khan as involved, e.g. Murray v CAB which cites the Independent. I presume the other cases and refs also are poor. Section needs an overhaul. 51.198.6.25 (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Homicide section in the lead
This statement in the lead is one that needs improved.

"Whilst Khan has been Mayor, London's murder rate is at a ten-year high. The Metropolitan police recorded 149 homicides in 2019 up to 30 December. In five years the homicide rate has increased by more than 50%, from 94 cases in 2014"

Manual of Style/Lead section says "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

The article doesn't talk about London's murder rate, it mentions knife crime and Khan's counter explanation of why it has increased (lack of funding by central government.) For balance, that should be in the lead. Furthermore, using 2014 as a baseline for comparisons seems particularly problematic. Khan took office in May 2016 and can therefore hardly be held responsible for the increase in 2015. On top of that, 2014 was an outlier: it had an unusually low murder rate, the lowest since at least the 1980s. Comparisons and mention of the increase since 2015 would seem fair, but again the article needs to cover that in the body as well. The figures may also be outdated this source (which may not be reliable) suggests that the number of murders in 2020 was 122 which would produce a Homicide Rate (per 100,000) akin to 2012/13. If that can be verified, it should be included. We should be using Homicide Rate (per 100,000) anyway, since London's population has grown by about 3% since Khan took office.

Thoughts? Valenciano (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree - it should either be balanced or removed (my preference, given that there is minimal coverage of any particular decisions that Khan has taken which would have increased the murder rate). Bellowhead678 (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

English or British?
I find it odd that Ken Livingstone is listed as an English politician in his article, while Sadiq Khan (who holds the same office) is listed as British. Unless we have evidence that they identify differently, we should probably remedy the inconsistency (I don't care which way).

(New comment by different person) Khan has been a minister in the UK government, Livingston was only ever a London politician.--Llewee (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * He was an MP (for Brent East). Wouldn't that make him a British politician? Britmax (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Photograph in infobox
Which photograph should be used to represent Khan in the infobox?

Currently the 2020 photo is used in the infobox, with an html comment instructing a talk-page discussion prior to a photograph change. I recently reverted an IP editor who changed to the 2016 photo, taking it as read from the comment that there was an explicit consensus for the 2020 photo: however, I don't see an archived discussion here.

In my view, the 2016 photo is objectively better. The lighting in the 2020 photograph is very poor, leaving Khan's eyes in shadow and giving him the impression of squinting despite it being night-time. It is also slightly blurred, probably because of the limited resolution. Neither photo appears to be an official portrait. The strongest argument I can see for the 2020 photograph is that it is more recent, but Khan does not appear to have aged significantly in the intervening four years. Hence I propose that we change the photograph. Wham2001 (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2023
Insert news that Khan 'may have' suffered a "minor heart attack" at the COP26 Climate Conference in Glasgow, under personal life. WIKI NFS (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  —  Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  18:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

My contribution taken down
I would like to know why my addition to this page was taken down. I added Khans sad error of putting a white family on a London promotional brochure where he added the tagline, "Doesn't represent real Londoners". I documented everything and stated just the facts. Who is protecting Khan and why? If what I wrote was in error or factually not true, I would love to see what my mistake(s) was. This is one reason why many do not trust Wikipedia nor respect it and claim it has a liberal bias. Wikipedia must do a better job reporting ALL info on a person, place or subject of any kind and show no bias. Lostinnh (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Not the one who removed your contribution but the editor who did stated that it was for likely copyright violations. Your contribution copied the source article word for word from "Khan was forced to distance himself" onwards up until "his view or the view of the GLA." Please rewrite the info when adding it to the Wikipedia article in your own words. You can quote the source article, but do so sparingly (I typically do so only when necessary). For more help see Copying text from other sources and Close paraphrasing. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I read the editors criticisms AFTER I wrote my reply. I did not see anything on my Notices or Alerts until then. The request of using my own words is not an unreasonable one. However, I did make other additions in my 5 months on here, some by pure copying and pasting, with no objections from anyone. Find that strange. I cannot believe that the objections to my most recent editing are not, somewhat in part, due to the two subjects; Muslim pols who are minorities in Great Britian. I also find it impossible to believe I am the first to add these well known negative incidents to their Wiki pages just to have them removed. I found the threats of blocking me as an editor distasteful and pathetic. I am also curious why this editor did not make the changes him/herself as I did most of the work (on Yusafs page, some of the copy were my words). I only started doing this "editing" 6+ months ago because of the grammatical errors I so often saw.
 * Thanks again for your assistance. Lostinnh (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ThatRandomGuy1 is correct. Thriftycat Talk • Contribs 01:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)