Talk:Tony Blair/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Should we add a criticism section?

The title says it all: Should we add a criticism section, were all the criticism against Blair is summed up, and presented in a more organized manner?

--84.202.87.128 (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why we wouldn't group things thematically. See WP:CSECTION. Graham (talk) 02:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
BLP articles should not have a criticism/controversy section, as they soon become a WP:COATRACK for every person with a grudge against the subject. Ed Miliband is a Good Article and does not have one. It would be hard for a BLP article to reach Good or Featured level with a criticism/controversy section because they are poor writing style and discouraged by WP:CRIT.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
In the same vein: Should we add a criticism section to the Adolf Hitler article? Hitler was also seen as a friend of the unemployed class of Germans, and he was just as good as Tony at starting wars which killed many innocent children. Jilljack1952 (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Saddam Hussein was killing the children of Iraq anyway, so don't act like everything was fine and dandy and something to be left alone forever. Also, what about Maggie Thatcher? She was the best at starting pointless wars. Tony Blair helped remove a dictator from power and has faced nothing but many years of negative critism for it and people under the silly belief it was just him going against the wishes of everyone else (ignoring the fact the vast majority of British parliament all backed him up, from both his own party and the main opposing Tories). Blair has faced nothing but enquiry after enquiry, none of which have concluded he was legally responsible for any crime. How many enquires did old Maggie face over the Falkland's war and the ethics in that? None! What evil force did she rid the world of as a result of her PR-driven war? None! No-one beats Maggie at starting wars we never needed just for the sake of political benefit! The Iraq War would have happened under tory rule (they don't even dispute this) but the Falkland's would have never happened under Labour rule. That says all there has to be said about which one was justified and which one was not. Lets not pretend the removal of Saddam Hussein was nothing but a good thing. Most people who criticise Blair even admit that. So reflect on that. We had two options. Go to war and remove him, or do nothing and allow him to continue his evil dictatorship. With the information he had at the time and the overwhelming support he had from parliament at the time from both sides of the political divide, and all other factors mentioned, Blair had a justified war. CliffordJones (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Tony Blair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 21:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Legacy?

Why nothing about this, or his attempts at stopping the Labour party moving away from the Blairite era and its policies? "A certain nostalgia in the parliamentary party is inevitable: it’s hard to deny Blair helped to create a powerful movement. Unfortunately that movement was Islamic State." - Frankie Boyle. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You might cite that as an example of sour grapes from a leftover old-labour lefty. Not much value in it, otherwise. 73.70.250.164 (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Tony Blair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 17:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

byzantine web of companies and limited liability partnerships

The byzantine web of companies and limited liability partnerships set up for Mr Blair has always made it impossible to know exactly how much money he is making. If the advisers' claims to The Times are accurate, up to £50million was paid into Windrush - the name of a series of interlocking companies and partnerships set up to manage Mr Blair's finances. Mr Blair also has Firerush, a mirror-image structure of companies, through which an undisclosed amount was paid. → http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-blair-rich-project-tx9cxjx78 ; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3544958/Tony-Blair-faces-quiz-tax-allegations-claims-used-secret-trust-manage-multi-million-wealth-contact-head-HMRC.html --79.223.15.176 (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Rebellion by backbenchers

The rebellion by Labour MPs in September 2006 should be mentioned in the lede, as it forced Blair to announce he would be resigning as Prime Minister and as Labour leader. He had said during the 2005 General Election campaign that he would serve a full third term. (81.159.6.184 (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC))

If this can be backed up with reliable sources, fair enough. However, if not it should not be given any consideration for the article, never mind the lead. Blair may have said he was planning to serve a full third term, but he had no plans to take the party to a fourth general election. Unless sources can prove otherwise it is reasonable to assume the pledge to see out a third term was simply a way of keep voters on side and keeping their confidence in both his leadership and Labour's direction. In order to allow someone else to run as the next PM he would have had to have stepped down before the end of the term. Indeed, you can only serve a full term if you are still leader at the next election. CliffordJones (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2016

Replace current infobox image with his official photograph PragmatiqueBrit (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this one is 7 years older than the one currently used, an "official" one is not inherently a better image to use Cannolis (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Precedent set by articles such as Al Gore, Bill Clinton contravenes this. PragmatiqueBrit (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@PragmatiqueBrit: If you wouldn't mind, I'm closing this once more for logistical reasons. Your account will be autoconfirmed within 4 days, at which point, you would be able to make the edit. No need to re-open. I'm also not carrying out this edit request because this seems to be slightly in dispute. @Cannolis: Last time I checked, this user already replaced images of Tony Blair on other pages with the one suggested. I don't think I'm the one to judge or have much of a say, but just an FYI. I think further discussion can happen here, outside of this edit request. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@PragmatiqueBrit:, you're right, there is precedent (though slightly more applicable would be to look at Gordon Brown and David Cameron), to use these official photos in the infobox. Using a 10 Downing Street photo would be fine, though if you could link to where it's from on their site that would be wonderful. Feel free to make the change yourself when your account is autoconfirmed as per Andy W.'s explanation. Cannolis (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
People always want an up to date photo in the infobox. If the 2007 official photograph was used, there would be comments every day asking why the article had an image that was so out of date.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Style of address

I made a change to remove the style of address section here and for William Hague. It has been reverted and I disagree so I'm discussing it at Talk:William_Hague#Relevance_of_style_of_address_section. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed here, unless it is specifically mentioned by secondary sources then I don't see the need for this section. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

War crimes

This article ought to mention the fact that he is accused of war crimes and of being criminally responsible for a war of aggression in violation of international law far more prominently in the lead. For example, it mentions a number of less notable facts, such as Blair allegedly performing charitable work (which seems WP:UNDUE in the first paragraph, as he is not mainly known for that, so it would be more appropriate to mention it somewhere below) and critics denouncing him for abandoning "genuine socialism and accepting capitalism," which is true, but far less notable than the worldwide criticism he receives over Iraq and mainly confined to the left wing of his own party.

When Blair is mentioned in the news, both in the UK and not at least globally, it is usually in connection with his responsibility for an illegal war of aggression in Iraq, criticism related to that and especially the possibility of him facing a war crimes trial or some other sort of trial or sanctions of some sort over that (for example the most recent domestic news about him in the UK is a move to have the parliament condemn him and possibly remove him from the Privy Council, which is said to be supported by the leader of his own party[1]).

This – Blair mainly featuring in the news in relation to criticism over his role in the invasion of Iraq – has been the situation for a number of years now. Heck, the possibility of his war crimes trial was fictionalized almost ten years ago, demonstrating how important this issue is for his legacy. Burying Iraq deep down in the 4th paragraph, where it is only mentioned briefly and described as "controversial" does not suffice and comes across as biased and offensive (would we bury the Holocaust in the 4th paragraph in Hitler's bio and describe it as "controversial"? note that this is not a general comparison of the two, only a comparison of the relative importance of the events in their biographies; Blair is mainly remembered for invading Iraq in violation of international law and for being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people that followed from that, for which he has been extensively condemned and increasingly reviled on a global scale, now with serious discussion in the UK of different ways to condemn, sanction and/or prosecute him) --Tataral (talk) 06:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Just one of many examples: Blair's own deputy prime minister John Prescott says Blair led the UK to invade Iraq illegally, and writes: "I will live with the decision of going to war and its catastrophic consequences for the rest of my life." [2] I expect that noone will dispute the importance of the invasion of Iraq for Blair's biography, and that its current brief mention at the end of the 4th paragraph is insufficient. Also, the Chilcot report should be mentioned in the lead, together with the broader criticism (which is more a universal condemnation than criticism in the normal meaning of the word) related to the invasion of Iraq. --Tataral (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

(This is just to note, for the record, that a number of comments were deleted at this point in the discussion:[3] --Tataral (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC))

I think it is only appropriate to cite examples of where there are notable opinions that war crimes or breaches of international law occurred. And I mean very notable opinions by significant authorities/experts. Until any such time as a formal process of prosecuting alleged crimes occurs, it is not suitable to even suggest this is anything other than opinion attributed to definite individuals .--Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Well in 2003, Prescott was there with the majority of the cabinet and parliament, shouting at the top of his voice how the war was the right course of action. So, it is too late to retract it all these years later. His opinion on Blair being a war criminal is about as reliable as someone's opinion on the sky being pink! CliffordJones (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Special Envoy role

Why shouldn't Blair's role as Special Envoy of the Quartet be included in his infobox? It is a notable and high-profile diplomatic office that he held for 8 years, and which has attracted significant amounts of controversy in the international media because of his business dealings. Despite what Bromley86 said in the edit history, adding the Special Envoy role to the infobox has absolutely no effect on the formatting or the date order. Thanks, Specto73 (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Date order. I've not bumped into an infobox officeholder, other than here, that goes 1997-2007/2007-2015/1994-1997 (or so I thought; see below).
It's also a diplomatic office that's outside of the usual career path of a prime minister/president/etc. If I open Tony Blair, I expect the office of Prime Minister to be the one salient office that jumps out (indeed, the template used here is infobox prime minister). I supplied a couple of examples of people who'd risen to the top of their organisations (Bill Clinton and Kofi Annan). I now see that I've somehow missed the obvious and kinda shot myself in the foot with the Annan one, as his post-main-office envoy status is mentioned in the infobox after secgen. Still, it doesn't mess with the date order, as there are only 2 offices for Annan.
Do you have any other examples of UN envoy jobs (or similar) appearing in the infobox of office holders known for something else? Bromley86 (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Found a good one that argues against my position - Helen Clark. In that case, envoy is moved to the top of the list, as I see you had it when you added it. Bromley86 (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Bromley86 - I would circumvent the date problem by putting the envoy role at the top of the list. If his PM role is placed ahead of it (which is understandable), then it still doesn't make sense for Blair's role of envoy to be excluded given its widespread coverage in the international press. Case in point:John Major was Leader of the Opposition in 1997 after he left Downing Street. The role of PM is placed above it, because it was more significant, but his role as Leader of the Opposition was still mentioned -- the aesthetics of an article should not be a reason to exclude something from it. As for the question of politicians holding diplomatic offices, have a look at George H.W. Bush. He was an Ambassador to the United Nations and served as a diplomatic liaison to China -- both diplomatic, apolitical posts that are mentioned in his infobox - and, come to mention it, with a mixed up date order. Specto73 (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Specto73. I had a look at US Presidents, which one would assume are decent articles. First one (George Washington) was exactly how this article was before I undid (Pres/PM, then date ordered). I've just had a look at a bunch of others and didn't find anything either way, but GW is a Good Article, so looks like I was wrong. Sorry, and I've added back the Special Envoy role. Bromley86 (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that the "Special Envoy of the Quartet" role merits inclusion in the infobox. It is pretty well known by now that it was mostly an empty title for a political retiree, and that he had little influence, did little and achieved nothing. "His record is one of failure. His budget of $8.3m a year was spent on renting floors in the American Colony hotel and for photo opportunities taking credit for useful projects that were done by someone else".[4] --Tataral (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/big-question-kcl/11635606/What-has-Tony-Blair-achieved-as-Middle-East-envoy.html is possibly a more measured assessment of his stint. This was at the time of the original appointment a very high profile role for someone generally seen as a very successful politician, despite your points elsewhere on this page. The 'mostly an empty title' is not supportable, even if the rest of your para were accepted.
Gravuritas (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

minus Removed Already included in the succession boxes. The Helen Clark example is also something to take note of, as well as less clutter in the infobox.--Nevé–selbert 23:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Image of Blair

A number of hours ago, Hazhk replaced this 2012 image with this 2014 image on the spurious basis that the former image was "unfitting for the infobox". Apparently he regards the 2012 image as one of him pulling a "silly face" (I am literally stupefied by this comment) and yet he sees absolutely no problem with the unflattering image we currently have as his infobox image. Thoughts from a third opinion about this are much welcome. See Special:Permalink/758013680 for what the article looked like with the former image in place, case you're unaware.--Nevé–selbert 21:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised by your 'stupefaction' and 'amazement' to my opinion that differs to yours. My opinion is that the current image is far superior. It shows a statesman - one who was known for his oratory powers - delivering a speech. Your image shows a man pulling a silly, unnatural face, looking like he has been rebuked or embarrassed. This is why I think the current image is more suitable for the article of a former prime minister. I don't want to be drawn into a long discussion but I welcome a third opinion. --Hazhk (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Calling Tony Blair a statesman is subjective on your part, and I can't find sufficient WP:RS referring to him as such. How on earth is he pulling a "silly", "unnatural face"? I am absolutely astonished, dumbfounded and thunderstruck by that inane and oxymoronic description. I agree that we are in desperate need of WP:THIRDOPINION. Your choice in adjectives are troubling (to say the least), I'm practically nonplussed to espouse any further. One has to constantly remind oneself that you are describing the 2012 image, not the 2014 one.--Nevé–selbert 23:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the 2012 photo is better. There's not much in it, but people rarely look their best with their mouth open mid-speech.
I also think a better discussion would be had if you calmed down. There's no need for anyone being stupefied or thunderstruck. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah. Upon further reflection I should have kept my cool. I've been under some stress recently, I've been working on a deadline; sorry Escape Orbit.--Nevé–selbert 23:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • A third opinion has already been provided, but I am inclined to disagree with it based on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Tony Blair is still a living person (WP:BLP), so using the most up-to-date image is preferable to older images. I don't consider that either the 2012 or the 2014 photographs are unflattering. However, the 2014 photograph should be preferred due to it being the most recent.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 17:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    That very nearly makes zero sense. The other image is only two years older than the current one. Hardly any difference when it comes to age.--Nevé–selbert 23:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I guess this can do with an RFC. My personal opinion is that I don't find either of the images to be suitable. Perhaps it would be helpful to find more images and then start an RFC? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the photo of Blair in the infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Found a third alternative in File:WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM ANNUAL MEETING 2009 - Tony Blair.jpg.--Nevé–selbert 21:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Should the lead retain the current photograph or should we replace it with this slightly older one? Or, should we go about considering a different portrait altogether? --Nevé–selbert 19:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Third alternative. Yikes, normally I don't have a strong opinion on the aesthetic calls of this kind of "which picture" RfC, but that picture genuinely looks like Blair was caught while having a stroke and passing wind simultaneously... However the other image is poor quality in it's own manner, so I tend to agree with Jonathon; a third option should be considered. The image proposed by Thincat would suffice, but I suggest it could benefit from some clean-up with regard to contrast, saturation, and luminosity and hue levels. I'll undertake the task myself if enough people feel it is a suitable option. Snow let's rap 01:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On the insertion of "Tony" in quote marks

See WP:QUOTENAME: "If a person has a well-known common hypocorism, used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial". "Tony" is a well-known common hypocorism for Anthony and therefore should not be given in the middle of the subject's full name. Policy is absolutely clear on this. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Tony Blair is his WP:COMMONNAME and it rare for the media to use anything else. It is only in court circulars that he is known as Anthony Blair. The lead section at Bill Clinton does have Bill in quote marks..--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Seems to me WP:COMMONNAME is about article titles, not leads. And the Bill in quote marks should be removed. Rothorpe (talk) 05:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I only mentioned Bill Clinton's article in the spirit of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's obvious that William Jefferson Clinton is commonly known as Bill Clinton, but I'm not going to get involved over there, as articles about US Presidents are well-known battlegrounds.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Emphasis on the invasion of Iraq in the lead

I have trimmed down some recent additions to the lead. Should his instigation of the invasion of Iraq be noted in the first section? Should we reinstate long quotes? I think we need to establish how much coverage we give to the Iraq War; undoubtedly it is given a lot of coverage in the main body and it is the major event of Blair's premiership. -- Hazhk (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree that the Iraq war currently has undue emphasis in this article. Tony Blair made Labour electable; won three elections in a row; ditched clause 4; kept Britain out of the Euro; overspent like crazy;.... Britain's role in the invasion of Iraq was a long way second to that of the US, so Blair did not instigate the invasion: it would have gone ahead anyway. I say this as no fan at all of Blair, but the continuing wars in Iraq and the region and the recent report (at last!) of the Chilcot enquiry should not lead us to over-emphasise the Iraq war.
Gravuritas (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Making his party electable, winning domestic elections and so on are trivial issues of only domestic relevance compared to starting an international war with hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, the most important war of the past decade and beyond. His main legacy, as is clear from reliable sources and indeed from the article, is his role in starting the Iraq War – particularly in a global context, and we're writing a global encyclopedia and not just for a domestic audience in his own country. The first section is supposed to summarize the key points of the article, and obviously the issue for which he is most widely known and which outweighs by far any other thing he did needs to be mentioned there. For example, the article on Hitler includes his role in starting WWII and invading Poland both in the first section and also below in the fourth paragraph of the introduction. Note that I'm not generally comparing Blair to Hitler, other than the fact that they were heads of government who played pivotal roles in initiating very important wars which are central to their historical legacies. Another example (there are numerous others): Radovan Karadžić' article of course mentions his role in the Bosnian War in the first paragraph; even though the casualties of that war were far lower than the Iraq War, and even though it was a far smaller war than the Iraq War. --Tataral (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
There is really no comparison between Blair and Hitler. Hitler is remembered exclusively for his role in the Holocaust and the Second World War -- i.e. few people know or care about any of his other achievements or his domestic policies whilst in office. You think of Hitler, you think instantly of WWII. Whilst Iraq was certainly an important part of Blair's premiership, he did far, far more things, and he is remembered for more things than just Iraq -- i.e. being the most successful politician in modern British history, trying to get us to join the Euro, vast public expenditure, Afghanistan, Scottish devolution, etc. Even his "people's princess" stuff about Diana is well-remembered. Blair will be remembered for much more than Iraq. Specto73 (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not written from the perspective of "us" (i.e., the UK). Whether he was "the most successful politician" can certainly be debated, considering that his legacy and reputation lie in ruins, and that he has mostly been mentioned during the past decade or so in a context where he is heavily criticized or condemned for war crimes relating to the Iraq War. Hitler is indeed very widely known for his domestic policies, including in the prewar years, I'd say far more known than Blair for such policies, and his policies in this area were also of far greater historical importance than anything Blair did. When Blair is mentioned these days, it is in the context of "Iraq", so he isn't that different from Karadžić, Milošević, Hitler and the rest of the gang in that regard. --Tataral (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree that noting the Iraq War in the very first paragraph of the article would seem to implicitly argue that this is the single defining feature of what was a very long premiership during which a great many controversial and momentous decisions were taken. Of course the intervention in Iraq is was one of the most significant events of Blair's premiership, and should be thoroughly examined in an article about Tony Blair, but in the interest of neutrality it would surely be better to refer to it in subsequent paragraphs which note Blair's main achievements and/or controversies. Otherwise it seems like the article is trying to push the reader towards a particular view of Blair and the Iraq War in particular - one which is not necessarily wrong, but which is by no means the only legitimate point of view.Isaac Guard (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the others that it should not be in the first paragraph - it already has a full paragraph in the lead. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tataral: clearly you missed this discussion - there is clear consensus here against inclusion in the first paragraph. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it absolutely makes sense to include a short mention in the first paragraph. It's a bit weird to read the above rationalizations for its removal and claims that this aspect of his biography is not important enough to be placed this high in the lede, considering that the subsequent sentence currently reads "From 1983 to 2007, Blair was the Member of Parliament for Sedgefield."
This is quite clearly the largest impact the subject of this article has had on world history (for good or ill - and let's note that Blair and some others still maintain that the war's benefits, in particular getting rid of Saddam, outweighed its downsides). And readers should be able to learn about it before being regaled with minutiae about Sedgefield etc. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The format of the biography is similar to other former PMs such as Margaret Thatcher and David Cameron (or even George W. Bush). While they might be most known for closing the coal mines and the EU referendum respectively, both of these are covered in later paragraphs rather than the first, which covers more general information. The question is whether Iraq is the most notable among many notable things that Blair did or whether it outweighs everything else completely. For me, Iraq might be the single most important thing that he did, but it is not more important than the sum of everything else. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Tataral disagrees here that there is a consensus against inclusion of Iraq in the first paragraph. By my count, 2 users (Tataral and HaeB) have argued for and 4 users (Gravuritas, Specto73, Isaac Guard and myself) have argued against. Hazhk also argued against in the edit summary here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Consensus is about the strength of arguments, and they must be based on Wikipedia policy (we don't "count votes," a concept that doesn't exist in the Wikipedia editorial process). The arguments for mentioning this in the first paragraph are very strong and are supported by the relevant policies and guidelines (such as WP:LEAD, e.g. WP:LEAD#Relative emphasis), whereas the arguments against don't seem to be policy-based (based on Wikipedia policies/guidelines and how the subject is treated in reliable sources) to any significant extent, but mere expressions of personal views (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). HaeB has offered an excellent explanation of why this should be mentioned in the first paragraph, instead of being buried in details about his life in domestic politics and treated as less important than Sedgefield. The case for mentioning this prominently has only become stronger over the years; it has been treated as his main political legacy, particularly on the world stage but even within the UK to a large degree, for over a decade, and is at least as important as him being leader of the Labour Party from 1994 to 2007, which is already included in the first paragraph. The current wording also has been stable since early last summer, and I don't think pretty old comments are that relevant (particularly since they didn't offer policy-based rationales) for the discussion we are having now, almost a year later. --Tataral (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:LEAD justifies inclusion of Iraq - "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic; for example, the lead for the article List of environmental issues succinctly states the limits of that list."

And there is an entire paragraph on Iraq, it's hardly buried in the details! And it has only been stable (since the summer, when you added it despite it being stable without inclusion beforehand) because you reverted any attempt to remove it, despite being the only editor at the time to argue for inclusion on the talk page. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

No Way

Odd that the Third Way, a major shift in the Labour Party's orientation (which reverberated internationally), which Blair is primarily identified with, does not show up in the main text except as the name of a magazine under "Faith" (and later in the name of his book). This modernization of party principles, or sell-out depending on your POV, rates a mention in the side box but no explanation in text. (Also oddly, text of the "Third Way" article names Blair about 18 times but doesn't link to this page.)

As for the dispute over mentioning the Iraq invasion in the lead paragraph, I tried to comment but could not get a cursor at the bottom text (as instructions say to do). One commenter said, "noting the Iraq War in the very first paragraph of the article would seem to implicitly argue that this is the single defining feature of what was a very long premiership." This is self-contradictory, as the paragraph "mentions" more than one "single defining" fact -- as it ought. In any case, Blair's support for Bush and the war, IMO, is arguably his lasting legacy in world politics and of high importance in modern UK history, especially regarding the Labour Party. Downplaying it seems like minimizing it, and implicitly apologizing for him, or even covering up. EricClarion (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we should mention the Third Way somewhat more prominently, including in the lead. It would belong somewhere in the second paragraph, where this subject is already discussed without mentioning the term Third Way. I also think your comment regarding the Iraq War excellently sums of why the Iraq War is of such unparalleled importance to his legacy. --Tataral (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2017

Under Early Political Career:

'In 1982, Tony phoned Tom Pendry, Member of Parliament for Stalybridge and Hyde, whom he knew of through his father-in-law, Tony Booth, who was a constituent of Pendry's. He requested Pendry's help in securing a Parliamentary seat and this was followed by Tony's first visit to the House of Commons as Pendry's guest, followed by lunch at the Gay Hussar in Soho.'

References: pp.34-5 in Tony Blair's A JOURNEY and pp. 121-6 in Tom Pendry's TAKING IT ON THE CHIN. 194.60.38.60 (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion of Iraq in the first paragraph

NO CONSENSUS.STATUS QUO IS RETAINED
Deciding the relative weight of the arguments behind the two sides in the discussion is a tough job and both have valid policies and rationale at their hand.The supporters of the proposal have leveraged a strong argument-that his contribution in Iraq war, by far outweighs anything else he did as prime minister.But on the other hand, a combination of WP:LEADPARAGRAPH and the fact that a fairly chronological sequence is currently followed at leads of all major political figures-skew the argument in favor of retaining the lead as it is.Winged Blades Godric 08:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Blair's role in the Iraq War be discussed in the first paragraph? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose inclusion of Iraq, which (while one of the things Blair is most known for) is not his defining issue. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Include. This (still) needs to be included (as a concise single sentence) for all the reasons mentioned in Talk:Tony_Blair#Emphasis on the invasion of Iraq in the lead, where HaeB offered a particularly good rationale which I fully endorse. It has overwhelmingly been treated by British and international reliable sources as his main political legacy for over a decade. Starting the most important war not only of the decade, but so far of the century and millennium, with hundreds of thousands of casualties and a huge impact on the Middle East, politically and otherwise, by far outweighs anything else he did as prime minister, and should be mentioned prominently per e.g. WP:LEAD#Relative emphasis. It should not be buried in details about domestic politics and treated as less important than his constituency of Sedgefield or his party offices at the domestic level. Another reason for inclusion is the enduring and strong controversy over his role (as seen in the debate over the Iraq Inquiry report last year); his name has become almost synonymous with that controversy after he left office. So far the editors who have objected to this have done so only on the basis of their personal views, rather than discussing how the lead section best can represent how this topic is viewed by reliable sources, including its relative importance for his political legacy, on the basis of WP:LEAD. --Tataral (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's clearly a prominent aspect that deserves to be mentioned in the introduction, but it seems rather incongruous in the first paragraph given that no other aspect of his time in office is. Number 57 10:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Did he do anything else as prime minister of comparable importance (to starting the most important war of this millennium with hundreds of thousands of casualties and which until this day has had a profound impact on the Middle East as a whole), both for the world as such and for his own legacy as seen in the coverage of him in reliable sources in the decade after he left office? The answer is obviously no, so the fact that other (less important, by far) stuff is not mentioned, is not a valid objection. (In fact, if you feel anything else should be mentioned more prominently, I invite you to propose changes, and I'm more than willing to listen to any such proposals). It's simply a fact that his role in starting the Iraq War defines him and his historical legacy. --Tataral (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion in first paragraph. I understand both sides of the argument here but WP:LEAD suggests to me that mentioning the Iraq war in the first paragraph violated NPOV. For reference Encyclopædia Britannica does not mention the Iraq war in the lead of its biography of Blair. AusLondonder (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Placement in first para is inappropriate by WP:BIOGRAPHIES policy or guidance, and the norms of precedent seen elsewhere. This is improper form for a bio, breaking the WP:MOSBIO guide that WP:BLPLEAD is to establish notability, neutrally describe the person, and provide context -- name, title, date of birth, nationality, and the notable positions. Putting an issue up top and ending it there without the normal stuff clearly is also exaggerated it out of the WP:BLP policy for WP:BALANCE and the TONE called for in WP:BLPSTYLE, and gives undue WP:WEIGHT for the topic in his life and for the weight the topic receives within the article -- it is only a portion of section 3.2.
The precedent seen elsewhere like Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, George W. Bush, and even Prior versions of Tony Blair is to put notable events down in the third or fourth para, AFTER the initial context opening and general progress of their life -- the events are small portions within the whole life. Suggest cut out that phrase, join the topline back to the para 2, and don't say Iraq until the third (now fourth) para. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Include. If not in the first paragraph, then it absolutely no lower in the lead than the first item in the second paragraph. I just did a quick search for "Tony Blair" on Google, and after Wikipedia and his official channels, the very first result is a news article covering his unpopularity that mentions Iraq in the first paragraph. The top story on The Guardian about him at the moment is about Iraq. Nearly all the other sources likewise make Iraq central. It defines his legacy completely and to the near-total exclusion of everything else, in a way that isn't common among any of the other politicians people are comparing him to (ironically, even the coverage of GWB, who was more central in the war, does not place that degree of overwhelming focus on Iraq.) I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that it's the main thing he's famous for, certainly more famous than anything in the second or third paragraph (putting it below his "New Labour" catchphrase or his detailed political history is ridiculous - those things are trivia. Iraq, meanwhile, is the chief thing he's notable for as an individual. Pushing it down to the fourth paragraph makes no sense. It should also be given significantly more text and focus - again, it makes no sense that the current second paragraph (a dry and mostly irrelevant recitation of comparative trivia about his time in office) is given so much more focus than the Iraq war, which near-completely eclipses all other aspects of his legacy. --Aquillion (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, endorse reasons given by Number 57, Markbassett, AusLondonder and others. There is little doubt that Blair's handling of the Iraq war and his personal support for GWB et al completely dominates any discussion of Blair's legacy, but that isn't a good enough reason IMO to break with normal fairly chronological sequence. Watergate is surprisingly far down the lead in the Nixon article, ditto Vietnam in the Johnson article and those are the nearest comparable situations I can think of, "seems incongruous in the first paragraph". Pincrete (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: per WP:LEADPARAGRAPH. To include Iraq in the opening paragraph would go against the established format for opening paragraphs in political biographies, if it were to be included then we would also need to include elements such as his electoral accomplishments which I don't think is the motivation behind this discussion. Clearly the invasion of Iraq is an emotive issues and one of the most significant legacies of Blair's premiership (particularly when taken from an international perspective) and it definitely needs to be included in the lead... which it already is. The current structure of the lead is about as near perfect as we could hope for, though in terms of content the third and fourth paragraphs (the fourth being where Iraq is currently mentioned) could do with being fleshed out a little more, for example the phrase War on Terror could probably be added to the fourth but also more successful military operations such as British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War and the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia could also do with being included (though these latter two should probably not be in the same paragraph as Iraq and Afghanistan). Ebonelm (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Include in the manner proposed by User:Tataral below. This gives context without being unbaised. StudiesWorld (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Summoned by bot. The current reference to the war is fine. Including it in the very first paragraph would be undue emphasis and create an NPOV issue. Coretheapple (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Inclusion in lede is fine and appropriate. However, inclusion in the very first paragraph, which is currently one sentence long, seems extremely undue. DarjeelingTea (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Note that in the above discussion, @Tataral: and @HaeB: have argued for inclusion in the first paragraph and @Gravuritas:, @Specto73:, @Isaac Guard: and myself have argued against inclusion. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

A note to other editors - Tataral may have misread the lead, as Iraq is not "buried in details about domestic politics" but has a whole paragraph to itself. As per WP:LEAD "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic; for example, the lead for the article List of environmental issues succinctly states the limits of that list." Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
No, I've not misread it (in fact I've written it). It's entirely normal and the recommended best practice, used all across Wikipedia, that an article is briefly summarized in the first paragraph (that's really the purpose of the first paragraph) and that the material is then addressed in more detail below in the introduction. For example, him being prime minister is also mentioned both in the first paragraph and then again in greater detail in the third paragraph, and the same is true for him being leader of the Labour Party which is mentioned both in the first paragraph and in greater detail in the second paragraph. So are you proposing that we remove Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Labour Party from the first paragraph as well?
When writing a first paragraph of the lead section for this article, it should give readers the most important information about Blair; it should tell readers that Blair is a British Labour politician who was Prime Minister 1997–2007, and who is mainly remembered for his role in starting the Iraq War. If they are interested in more details, they can continue reading the introduction and the rest of the article. --Tataral (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
OK so we are disagreeing about whether Iraq is a very important issue or the issue that defines not just his premiership but him as a person. I'm not sure there is much further to discuss here between us. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
It may very well be that you personally disagree with the fact that "Iraq is a very important issue" or that his role in starting the war defines his legacy, but since Wikipedia is based on how reliable sources assess him and his legacy, not editors' own opinions, that's not really relevant, and reliable sources (included in this article) clearly establish that the Iraq War is "a very important issue" and that it defines his historical legacy and him, as seen from the fact that he is seldom mentioned nowadays without the word Iraq and that he is engulfed in controversy over his role in that war (which we saw last summer when his own party leader apologized for the Labour Party's role in the war and said he was "prepared to call for Tony Blair war crimes investigation"[5].) --Tataral (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this is an ill-conceived RfC, for example because there may be various options for solving this disagreement that have not been explored yet. Per WP:RFC, "Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others", and I don't see Absolutelypuremilk having discussed alternatives such as, say, shortening the mention in the first paragraph, or including mention of whatever other achievements editors argue should be considered at least as important as the Iraq war. What I'm seeing instead is attempts to tally "votes" and other failures to work toward consensus.

In Absolutelypuremilk's version, the first mention of the Iraq war is buried more than 2000 characters down into the article, below minutiae about Sedgefield, "Lord Liverpool in 1812" and Lady Di. That's a disservice to the reader.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't really see any options for compromise that work here - I and other editors think that the first paragraph should identify and define Blair, i.e. Labour politician and MP who was PM from 97 to 2007. The details of what he did in those roles should then be further down in the lead. This is what Wiki guidelines suggest: as per WP:LEAD "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic; for example, the lead for the article List of environmental issues succinctly states the limits of that list."
If it would help convince you, then maybe we could trim down the second and third paragraphs of the lead if these are what worries you, though I'm not sure why you are counting in characters rather than paragraphs? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
What exactly are "Wiki guidelines"? Wiki is a type of website and a type of software, not a name of this project. Other than that, you have clearly misunderstood the policy in question and the purpose of the lead section. The first paragraph is intended to summarize the most important content in the article. It is not necessarily required to include a person's political office; the key criterion is what he/she is best known for and what defines him/her (including what defines his/her political legacy in a case like this). In Blair's case, the office is clearly important enough to be a prominent part of the first paragraph, but not to the exclusion of what has turned out as his main political legacy, the Iraq War. --Tataral (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The current exact wording of this in the first paragraph is not something I insist on, and I would support shortening it somewhat, from the current wording
With US President George W. Bush in 2003, he initiated the Iraq War with the invasion of Iraq, an act which remains highly controversial
to e.g.
His role in initiating the Iraq War remains controversial.
The key issue here is that the reader should get to see something about the Iraq War before reading all those endless details about Sedgefield, "Lord Liverpool in 1812" and Lady Di. --Tataral (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I will trim down the Iraq mention until the RfC is concluded. So you would be happy for Iraq to not be be in the first paragraph if the 'Sedgefield, "Lord Liverpool in 1812" and Lady Di' references were removed?

"The first paragraph is intended to summarize the most important content in the article. It is not necessarily required to include a person's political office; the key criterion is what he/she is best known for and what defines him/her (including what defines his/her political legacy in a case like this)." Could you show me where any of this is stated in Wikipedia guidelines? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This is clear from e.g. WP:LEAD, which states for example: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.
I do not propose that we remove his Sedgefield constituency (although I find the Lord Liverpool in 1812 reference somewhat trivial) because, as noted above, the lead "should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic". So the lead should start with a few sentences defining the topic, his most important roles, and the single most important event he is notable for which is widely considered his main legacy, and then describe his political career in more detail. This is the normal way lead sections on politicians are written (in well developed articles). --Tataral (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree exactly with that policy - but it is referring to the whole lead, not the opening paragraph, which "should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific". Note that George W. Bush, David Cameron, Angela Merkel, Gordon Brown, John Major, Winston Churchill all start with identifying the subject in broad terms, rather than going into specifics in the first paragraph.
I removed the Lord Liverpool reference. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Reliable sources do not consider Merkel's main political legacy to be having started the most important war of this millennium. There are other more relevant articles mentioned above, e.g. on various Balkan politicians strongly associated with the Yugoslav Wars. And frankly, the Churchill article's first lead paragraph includes a ludicrous amount of trivial details, including his activity as a hobby artist and honorary citizenship. Your comment does not take into account what reliable sources established, that the Iraq War is "a very important issue". He was prime minister, and during his term in office this is what he became known for, and when he is mentioned today, it is most often in the context of the Iraq War. --Tataral (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I suggest that, a decade or more after the war, the reiable sources of interest should be shifting from newspaper and radio ephemera to more considered judgements by historians. Blair's part 'in the starting of the Iraq war' may indeed be controversial, but what was his part, precisely? Afaik it was twofold: he led the (very) junior partner in the Coalition into the war, and in the run-up to the war he willingly became the PR head for the whole enterprise. But in order to ascribe to the war the all-fired emphasis (in this article and its lede) which some eds are arguing for, imho they need to show that, without Blair, the war would not have happened. If the US was going ahead with the war anyway, then what actually did Blair's involvement achieve, (good, bad, or very bad?). If all they can show is that, without Blair, the UK would not have joined the war then it does not deserve great emphasis: the impact on Britain of the Iraq war to date is of much less significance than, say, the unprecedented 13 years of Labour rule. I think it's unfortunate that, in this case as in many others, even Blair's opponents are accidentally accommodating his world view that PR and spin are more important than the facts.
Gravuritas (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Re they need to show that, without Blair, the war would not have happened: no, that would be a form of original research and is not how it works. For Wikipedia, it is sufficient that reliable sources strongly associate Blair with his role in starting the Iraq War; whether the UK could have started it without the US is both immaterial and a form a speculation; the UK did take part in it, Blair was so to speak the public face of the war, and "years of festering anger over the Iraq War has eroded Blair’s reputation"[6] and made his name synonymous with the war. Also, this article is not about "the impact on Britain of the Iraq war," but rather on the impact on the world of the Iraq war, and everything he did domestically in Britain is dwarfed by far in terms of importance by the impact of the Iraq War on the Middle East, including, but not limited to, the hundreds of thousands of people who lost their lives there. --Tataral (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The Iraq war is not mentioned in the opening paragraph of George W. Bush or John Howard. AusLondonder (talk) 07:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
In addition to being WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it may very well be that reliable sources don't identify either of them with the Iraq War to such a strong and near-exclusive degree; for example, as a European I find Howard to be a somewhat peripheral figure on the world stage (with Australia being a much smaller and less influential country than the UK, and still being somewhat nominally/symbolically/culturally subordinate of sorts to the UK). Bush' legacy on the other hand is also associated with a number of other significant events, such as 11 September, the Afghanistan War, the larger "war on terror" and more. It may not be fair that Bush' legacy isn't near-exclusively identified with the Iraq War, or that Bush isn't facing the severe and enduring criticism that Blair faces (e.g. the Chilcot report), or that Bush isn't constantly confronted with the Iraq War whenever he shows his face or says something in public, or that historians, commentators and media in his country don't consider his reputation to "lie in ruins" due to the Iraq War, or that the leader of his own political party doesn't talk about prosecuting him for war crimes (as the Labour leader does in the case of Blair), but Wikipedia is not about correcting great wrongs. However, I would be willing to consider a proposal to add something about the Iraq War to the first paragraph of his article, so I encourage you to go ahead if you feel this should be included there. --Tataral (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Tatara. You are utterly wrong. This article is not about 'the impact on the world of the Iraq war', it's about Tony Blair, innit? You've also completely misunderstood the point: I made no reference at all to 'whether the UK could have started it without the US', I referred to the likelihood that the US would have started it without the UK. Regarding your OR point: if all the collective RS can say at this point is that Blair's name Is 'associated' with the Iraq war, then that's of no great historical significance-it's just PR. In a nutshell- did he cause the war? If so, point to the RS that says so. If not, then drop it from the lead.
Gravuritas (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The article is about Tony Blair, not about "the impact on Britain of the Iraq war" but about Blair's overall legacy and impact on the whole world, not just one country. Apart from that, even within the UK his legacy has for well over a decade mainly been associated with the Iraq War, as we saw clearly last year and as we often see whenever he is mentioned in British newspapers. --Tataral (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad you're beginning to get the point that the article is about Tony Blair. But- "his legacy has....mainly been associated with the Iraq war"? That's a weak statement: let's hear from some RS that his major legacy was the Iraq war, not weaselly "associated with's". Let's have a serious RS for that, not a newspaper article or some speculation and blather about whether someone is going to pass a motion or not, which is the source I've just deleted. Please note, I don't want to hear about how many column inches are devoted to him and Iraq. What real effect did he have in the Iraq war, and how does this compare in importance with him making Labour electable or shagging the UK constitution?
Gravuritas (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Let's see, you want me to provide with with original research on the "real effect" of the Iraq War (whatever that means), but you're not interested in reliable sources and the amount of coverage of his Iraq legacy ("how many column inches are devoted to him and Iraq"). Of course, there's an endless amount of reliable sources on the "real effect" of the Iraq War to be found – on the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, including hundreds of thousands of civilians, a more than decade-long war, destabilitation of the entire Middle East, ISIS and more, a "toxic legacy [that] is still generating headlines 13 years on"[7] – if you're really interested, but I think it won't be necessary to debate that here, because this discussion is only about a brief mention of the war.
I'm also sorry to say that 20-year old domestic elections in a medium-sized country are almost trivial in comparison to the most important war so far in this millennium, and those elections are not generally what reliable sources have discussed in the past decade when the subject is Blair's legacy, in fact they are rarely mentioned. Furthermore, reliable sources have been in agreement for over a decade that his past accomplishments are dwarfed by his Iraq War legacy, a legacy that "leaves him damned for all time".[8] As Jonathan Freedland notes, "from the horrors of Isis and Syria to Brexit and the travails of our political parties, we still live every day with the legacy of Tony Blair’s war 13 years ago."[9] And since you mention constitutional reforms, one of Britain's leading constitutional experts, Vernon Bogdanor, pointed out already back in 2007, "the public service and constitutional reforms undertaken by the prime minister represent historic achievements, but in recent years these have been overshadowed by the Iraq War, a war for which many will never forgive him."[10] And since then, his legacy has only focused increasingly on Iraq, as we saw when the Chilcot report came out.
So far, I've seen a lot of personal opinions, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, original research and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but no valid reasons for not mentioning this in the first paragraph. It has been clearly established that it is his most important legacy as a politician, that reliable sources consider the impact of the Iraq War to be very great, and that Blair is until this day severely criticized/condemned/reviled for his Iraq War. --Tataral (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Excellent, and thankyou. If you care to read the Bogdanor article as opposed to misunderstanding the sub-head, you would find that his verdict is that Blair's public service and constitutional changes are of much more significance in his legacy than anything else. In fact, he summarises Blair's legacy in the last para as 'we are none of us socialists now'. That's my point, made by a heavyweight as opposed to yesterday's chip wrappings. And please, please, stop confusing the importance of the war, with the importance of Blair's role in it. You're still blathering that "...RS consider the impact of the Iraq war to be very great..."- yes, but with respect to this article, so what?
Gravuritas (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General Election 2017

I'm unsure why a whole section on this election (which he is not running in, incidentally) is needed here. Especially when it's mostly just quotes from him, apparently sourced to one newspaper. I've tried to remove the section but been reverted by its author. I'd support a slimmed down, well-referenced section, if anything. Aiken D 16:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

  checkY Merger complete. Have copy-edited the content a little, merging the separate sections about Brexit and the next election into one.--Nevé–selbert 17:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
It's still very quote heavy, linked to the Guardian article. Is it all really needed? Aiken D 17:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Nobody cares. If it goes in then it will be deleted in a couple of months as an intervention of no significance. I just pulled the plug instead of leaving it on life support for a few weeks.
Gravuritas (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tony Blair. 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:

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

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

New portrait

Proposed photo

Hi, what do you think about this photo? Do you think we should use it in the infobox? In my view, it's clearer, better cropped, more recent and more "institutional" than the current one. What do you think? -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@JLo-Watson: My dear friend, how can I waiting for consensus if nobody answers to my question? I started this discussion two weeks ago, but nobody answered, so I decided to change the portrait without consensus (as I clearly expressed in the edit summary); moreover I was thanked for my edit by other users like Hazhk, so I'm not the only one who think that this portrait is better than the current one. However I'm absolutely ready to discuss with you and other users, if you want... -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I've no strong opinion on either photo. Both are good. However, it seems reasonable to go for the more recent, 2012 rather than 2009. The 2012 one is also more face-on, so a better representation of Blair's appearance. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
It's an interesting point: do we go with the more recent one, or with the more recognisable one (relating to when a person was famous). There may be a WP pronouncement on it, but looking at former US presidents, it seems to be when they were in office. Bush1, Bush2, Clinton (the successful one, not the failure, although it surprisingly applies to her too (Hils)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bromley86 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Missing Word

"On the that Blair resigned as Prime Minister" should be "On the day that Blair resigned as Prime Minister" It's a simple error, and should be easy to fix. I'm not very active on the site, so it won't let me edit a semi-protected page, but I'm sure someone else could take care of it for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ender the Editor (talk • contribs) 03:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"Irish descent"

Blair's maternal ancestors were Ulster-Scots Orangemen (Corscadden is original a Scottish name from Dumbartonshire). These people would have more than likely seen themselves as British not Irish, so it seems weird to include Blair in this category. Claíomh Solais (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Tony Blair. 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:

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

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

On Blair not issuing a list of Resignation Honours

The last topic on Blair's prime ministry ends with the sentence:

"Blair decided not to issue a list of Resignation Honours, making him the first Prime Minister of the modern era not to do so", implying something of an honorable departure from traditional, decadent customs. In light of the notorious 'Cash For Honours' scandal (barely mentioned in the article but very well covered in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_for_Honours) I find the following sentence more appropriate:

"After the Cash for Honours scandal, both Blair and Gordon decided not to issue a list of Resignation Honours upon the end of their terms".

Mauro Mello (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

External link verified
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tony Blair. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Jewish ancestry

Shouldn't the article mention that his grandmother was Jewish? (81.135.14.78 (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC))

You'd need evidence In reliable secondary sources that this was true; and further evidence in reliable secondary sources that, if true, it had any particular relevance to Blair's actions or character. As no sources have been provided, and a cursory online search reveals only conspiracy theory blog sites, I'd say the article should not mention this assertion. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/31/1093938921707.html - Blair 'bone cancer risk' after Maralinga

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/toddler-blairs-nuclear-history-1495815 - Toddler Blair's nuclear history

https://www.pri.org/stories/2010-03-27/australian-victims-nuclear-testing-sue-uk - Australian victims of nuclear testing sue U.K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.216.239 (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Something about the formulation of the description about the operation in Sierra Leone

When discussing the Sierra Leone operation, the text of the article currently reads "Operation Palliser in Sierra Leone swiftly swung the tide against the rebel forces; before deployment, the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone had been on the verge of collapse.[65] Palliser had been intended as an evacuation mission but Brigadier David Richards was able to convince Blair to allow him to expand the role; at the time, Richards' action was not known and Blair was assumed to be behind it."

This formulation seems to hint that Tony Blair shouldn't have gotten the praise for this successful mission, because it wasn't his idea. But that's nonsense: he was the prime minister and it was his decision and he was responsible for the results. I mean, let's say that the operation would have gone terribly wrong - I don't suppose the text of this article would have hinted that the blame shouldn't be on Blair but rather on his subordinate, Brigadier Richards, who came up with the idea, right? It is obvious that if something goes wrong, the prime minister should take the blame. It should thus be obvious that if things go right, the prime minister should be given the credit... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZiggyMercury (talk • contribs) 22:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLES

GoodDay changes the lead from Anthony Charles Lynton Blair (born 6 May 1953) is a British politician who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2007 and Leader of the Labour Party from 1994 to 2007. He was Leader of the Opposition from 1994 to 1997. to {{Anthony Charles Lynton Blair (born 6 May 1953) is a British politician who served as prime minister of the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2007 and leader of the Labour Party from 1994 to 2007. He was leader of the Opposition from 1994 to 1997.}}, citing MOS:JOBTITLES. AlbanGeller reverted, citing British English. I restored GoodDay's version, and AlbanGeller restored the status quo ante.

I think that GoodDay's version was correct, and follows one of the examples in MOS:JOBTITLES almost exactly. And this is also a pretty standard style in British English. Ralbegen (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The matter may have to be settled at WP:JOBTITLES, if there's two interpretations concerning British english style. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Wiktionary on British English: When referring to a prime minister by title and name together, British usage is “the Prime Minister, Tony Blair” or “Tony Blair, the Prime Minister”, while North American usage is “Prime Minister John Doe” or “John Doe, (the) prime minister of Noland” or “John Doe, the prime minister”. AlbanGeller (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't we follow the WP:MOS rather than Wiktionary usage notes? Ralbegen (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:MOS is a guideline, not a policy. The convention in British English is to capitalise. AlbanGeller (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:MOS is the relevant guideline, rather than a usage note on a separate project that doesn't apply to this usage. The Wiktionary link you gave is about the specific formulations "Prime Minister Tony Blair" and "Tony Blair, the Prime Minister", neither of which are relevant to the lead here. It also says that there isn't a single style. WP:JOBTITLES includes an example almost identical example to this case about a British prime minister. There's not a good reason not to follow the MOS here. Ralbegen (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it might help matters if @Mechanical Keyboarder: were to give his input here. Rather then steamrolling forward on multiple articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Error in Tony's website Personal Details

Hello! I am apparently not allowed to edit this page (I do not have an account and even if I did, doubt I'd have permissions) so I'll just point out an error that can be simply fixed. If you go to the website link given (Institute for Global Change at institute.global/tony-blairs-role), it redirects to institute.global/tony-blair1 which leads to a 403 error asking you to go elsewhere (Including a link to the Tony Blair page I mentioned) as the page is still under construction. Yet by simply removing the 1 at the end, it takes you to a perfectly functional personal Tony Blair page. I think at the very least it'd reduce time wasted on workarounds by making this small change. Hope somebody reads this! Good day!

24.113.163.59 (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑Neveselbert (mobile) (talk · contribs · email) 12:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image

Re this edit: I also cannot claim to be a big fan of the current infobox image. There are plenty to choose from on Commons and this one is quite good.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The current photo is the best-quality image on the Commons, though a front-facing recent image would be better. Ralbegen (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I've cropped and edited the 2009 photo, it can be seen here. How about this?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
In that one, his mouth is open and his hand is partially covering his face. It could be worth including in the body of the article but I think we want something more like a formal portrait for the infobox. Ralbegen (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The 2009 photo has been used in the past, and overall I think it looks better than the current very stilted image in the infobox. It shows Blair in a more natural light.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:LEADIMAGE says we should use the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, which is a traditional portrait-style photo. Ralbegen (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
It's so stilted, and not at all like an average photo of Tony Blair.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


Surely was a Politician in the intro ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Why don’t we use File:Blair June 2007.jpg in the infobox? Ciaran.london (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Marr - historian?

The article refers to Andrew Marr as a "historian"; he is not. He is a journalist and TV broadcaster who also writes books of popular history relying entirely on secondary sources. He conducts no original research. and holds no academic post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.111.97 (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree here. This article is about a UK politician, and Andrew Marr is known almost exclusively as a journalist/broadcaster in the UK. In the absence of any objection's I'll go ahead and change this. -- Fold 1997 (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Small obsolesence on Mahathir Mohamad

Really small edit, since I can't do it directly I reckon I'll just throw it on here. Under Post-Premiereship, (Accusations of War Crimes), the Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohamad is identified as the 'current and former Prime Minister of Malaysia'. However, he has not been PM since May 2020, so it would be simpler and more accurate to remove the 'current and' part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.33.188 (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑Neveselbert (mobile) (talk · contribs · email) 20:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Early political career

In the penultimate paragraph of #3 Early political career "Once elected, Blair's political ascent was rapid. He received his first front-bench appointment in 1984 as assistant Treasury spokesman." appears to be based on "Blair's ascent was rapid, and he received his first opposition front bench appointment in 1984 as assistant Treasury spokesman" from So Many False Dawns in British Politics by Anthony Owen, p.49[1]. If Owen's wording is changed it might be better if it were something like "Once elected, Blair's political ascent was rapid. He received his first shadow front-bench appointment in 1984 as assistant Treasury spokesman.".

More generally perhaps the section should be compared with those of Gordon Brown[2], Neil Kinnock[3], John Smith[4] and others. Mcljlm (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.co.il/books?id=AcbcAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=Blair%27s+political+ascent+was+rapid.+He+received+his+first+front-bench+appointment+in+1984+as+assistant+Treasury+spokesman.&source=bl&ots=3vMEoM882l&sig=ACfU3U2v14FA6OFkpsHm11sQdwAGhkhVBw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjp2qSmqbLvAhWZHewKHZkcCU4Q6AEwAHoECAIQAw#v=onepage&q=Blair's%20political%20ascent%20was%20rapid.%20He%20received%20his%20first%20front-bench%20appointment%20in%201984%20as%20assistant%20Treasury%20spokesman.&f=false
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Brown
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Kinnock
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Smith_(Labour_Party_leader)

Picture

I noticed earlier that a new (and in my opinion better) lede image of Blair had been added to this page. I was wondering why it has since been removed? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I've just noticed that that the new image in question has since been removed from Wikipedia entirely. That's a shame, but there were presumably copyright issues? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Although the image appears on various government websites, there's no evidence it's OGL. The one government page with an explicit copyright statement for the image is here, and say's it's copyright Brian Moody and even offers a link for licencing the image. Given that, I very much doubt a "it appears on a UK government website, therefore it must be OGL" assumption is correct. FDW777 (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
See also the discussion of the infobox image above. Personally I would go for this image which has been used in the past. I don't like the weird fixed stare in the current infobox image.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tony_Blair/Archive_8&oldid=1137260000"