Talk:Tony Blair/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

News of the World Phone Hacking

On 14 July 2011 Tony Blair spoke to the BBC's Jon Donnison in Ramallah about the hacking scandal and his relationship with News International < http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14160363>. He said he had wanted an inquiry for a long time, and added that he never owned a mobile phone until he left office, so it was unlikely he had been targeted.

I can recall miles of footage showing him using both types of devices - can anyone shed more light on how he managed to communicate at all as PM without them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.226.75 (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The only things I can find regarding Tony Blair and mobile phones (apart from the latest hacking news) is that he got his first phone after leaving office. I can find no photos or film of him using a phone - and even if one is found, that could be someone else's. As for "how he managed to communicate at all as PM without them", that is irrelevant, but I expect he was never alone. (PMs don't holiday alone, they go with their staff). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.71.174 (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems so odd - the timing of this statement was right in the middle of a press debate on whether there was an audit trail of discussions of his re 'the dodgy dossier' - it really looked as if he'd been told to say this in his very next TV interview, even if not asked directly. I wonder if there were any 'unmarked' phones in use by his staff and others in government at the time - you know, cash purchases in different names, to circumvent intrusions by others organs of the state???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.225.59 (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

European Council president speculation

Could somebody fix the first sentence of the "European Council president speculation" section where it reads "there there"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.124.83.97 (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Yone Fernandes (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm just leaving a placeholder note here to say that I'll take this on. I'll read through the article in the morning and start leaving suggestions in bullet points which folks can mark as {{done}} or whatever suits them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Initial review

OK, these are just notes I've made as I read through the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

lead

Review based on this version.

• Generally, one would expect to see the DOB cited in the lead and not mentioned in the body, though MOS:BIO doesn't seem to state this explicitly  Done moved
• He's known as (indeed the article is titled) Tony, so "Tony" should be in the bold passage between his last middle name and his surname (see, for example, James Dutton (Royal Marines officer))  Done
• I've a feeling I'm going to take some flak for this but the third paragraph needs to be reworked entirely:
  • The Northern Ireland stuff should be merged with the last paragraph
  • I would suggest mentioning the September 11 attacks
  • I believe he vowed to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with the US; if you can find a better source than his autobiography, that's worth a mention
  • Iraq is inevitably going to form a huge part of his legacy and so should have more than the briefest of passing mentions. I think Iraq and Afghanistan combined are worth a paragraph in the lead. Blair himself devotes almost a sixth of his entire autobiography exclusively to Iraq, so even he recognises how big-a-part of his legacy it is
  • Kosovo and Sierra Leone are notable by their absence
• I would suggest placing all his post-PM work in a single paragraph  Done shifted a couple of sentences into final para.
• Should Gordon Brown's role in the leadership election be mentioned in the lead? something to think about/discuss rather than an instruction

• "on behalf of the United Nations, the European Union, the United States, and Russia" is redundant to the Quartet link  Done removed.
  • The factoid about ordering troops into battle more times than any other PM is trivia and, while worth mentioning in the body, shouldn't be in the lead  Done tweaked and moved.
• Envoy? More overlinking and another egg hunt  Done removed
• Another egg hunt (and unnecessary link) with general elections  Done removed
• Those semicolons should be commas  Done in the lede and one in the body of the article but not throughout the article.
• What GB did before becoming PM isn't really relevant to TB's bio -  Done - removed. Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Is there a reason "British" is linked to British people and not United Kingdom?  Done - altered to United Kingdom
• Politician is overlinking  Done - removed
• Why is there a semicolon after Freedom of Information Act?  Done removed
  • Foreign policy is overlinking (and it's an egg hunt anyway) -  Done - removed
• Since the lead is meant to be a summary of the body, I tend to dislike citations in there

Reading the lead, I don't think it's a great summary of the article. Obviously, one has limited space, but I think quite a bit of it is excessively detailed or covers less important parts, while some of the more important points are given less weight or omitted. Certainly Iraq (and probably Afghanistan) need more coverage in the lead and Sierra Leone may need to be added, Kosovo certainly does. There's nothing in the lead about what he did before becoming Labour leader nor on the post-John Smith/pre-1997 era. Other parts could do with being boiled down to be a concise summary of the body. Speaking of summary, everything in the lead (except DOB) should be in the body and so shouldn't need to be cited in the lead. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Background and family life

• My first thought is whether this might be better split into "early life" and a "personal life" section at the end, which is a more common style, but it's by no means essential.
• Most, if not all, of those subheaders are unnecessary. The prose would flow better without them and much of the content is too short to warrant its own section. We also have bits and bobs that don't squarely fit in any of the headers.
• As I mentioned above, the DOB is normally cited in the lead and not mentioned in the body.
• George Corscadden's descent needs a ref
• The second half of "life as a child" is unsourced
• Ref #19, in this version, looks like a primary source. I'm sure a better source could be found.
• While Blair was at Oxford, his mother Hazel died of cancer, which greatly affected him. Affected him how?
• Why is Cherie's religion relevant?
• Is that really all there is to write on his children?
• All four children have Irish passports... Does that mean they're Irish citizens, or do they have dual citizenship?
• Personal health: a one-sentence section? That needs to be incorporated somewhere else. Also, I think there's substantially more to say about his health than that
• The religious faith section is a mess. It's kind of a list of things that happened or that people said about him. It needs to be converted into flowing prose about his faith and why it's notable rather than just a series of events.

I'm going to wait for these points to be addressed before I move onto the next section both as a way of ensuring the work is done and so as not to overwhelm people. I'll check on progress after the weekend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yea, thanks Harry, am with a little energy to help and I am going to get other editors busy on this in a bit, there is work and improvements here to do , thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It can get there, but it'll take work. You know where I am if you need anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What's the status of this review? Started well but no comments in a couple weeks. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Its gone a bit sleepy, a battalion of assistants were nudged but failed to show up, I still have energy for contributing but was feeling lonely and a little out of my editorial depth. Are we on a time limit? Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I usually go with 'the sooner the better' in terms of getting GA reviews wrapped up, though with as large an article as this I'm pretty lenient on letting things run its course. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

New reviewer

Following this note from the original reviewer at WT:Good article nominations#Reviews for Tony Blair and C. W. A. Scott, i shall take this on. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: one EL is dead, tagged.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead does not fully summarise the article, difficult to do in four paragraphs, but possible. Early life is missing, faith, early career, criticism, see WP:LEAD

   This was followed in July 2009 by the launching of the Faith and Globalisation Initiative with Yale University in the USA, Durham University in the UK and National University of Singapore ... missing "the" in front of "National University of Singapore".

   Single sentence sections are deprecated, e.g. Personal health

   Also solitary sentences in several other sections.

   He appears in a number of reported cases, for example as in Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner[21] where he represented employers unsuccessfully in an attempt to deny female factory workers holiday pay. Change of tense.

   Speculation places his personal wealth at £60 million, mostly earned since his tenure as Prime Minister, and owns nine properties around the world. Ungrammatical

   'Honours section. The honours are listed bullet point style and then rendered in prose, best to remove the list.

   Social networking media have been used to protest Blair's policies and legacy of unjustified and criminal war on Iraq Is this relevant to the Memoirs section?

   In 1994, Blair met Michael Levy, later Lord Levy, a pop music mogul and fundraiser.[111] Blair and Levy became close friends and tennis partners. What has this got to do with Middle East policy and links with Israel?

   The Prime Minister and policies sections should probably be combined as policies cover many issues dealt with by the subject as Prime Minister.

   Overall, the article is not well organised.

   The Relationship with the Labour party section actually has very little about the subject.

   In 2004, 50 former diplomats, including ambassadors to Baghdad and Tel Aviv, stated they had 'watched with deepening concern' at Britain following the U.S. into war in Iraq in 2003. perhaps "as" was meant rather than "at"

   Style, "Tony Blair" should not be used except at the beginning, just "Blair" or "he"

   He has also appeared himself at the end of the first episode of The Amazing Mrs. Pritchard, a British TV series about an unknown housewife becoming Prime Minister. Not a housewife, she was a supermarket manager. There seems to be a lot of carelessness like this throughout.

   The see also section contains at least one link that is already used in the article.

   Prose is rather choppy, could do with a thorough copy-edit to improve the flow.

   The organisation appears to be all over the place, I suggest pretty much starting again, with a clear structure. Most of the material here can be used, but not as it is presently thrown together.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Several citation needed tags have not been addressed, the oldest from 2009

   In 2000 Blair "flagged up" 100 million euros for green policies and urged environmentalists and businesses to work together. The citation states clearly £ (sterling). Britain doesn't do euros!

   There is a lot of inconsistency in how citations are given. All newspaper articles should have author, date and publication details.

   I am surprised that it appears none of the books published on Blair have been used as sources. they may have better material and might suggest a better structure.

   One dead EL that should probably be removed.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Hard to tell until the article is better structured.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Semi-protected, so seems OK

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images used are licensed and captioned, I accept that it is hard to get British photographs because of the government's restrictive policies.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am not going to list at this time because the article is badly structured and does not flow well. The lead does not fully summarise the article. There are many un-addressed tags on the article, some over two years old. Recommend that it is restructured and the prose polished. This is going to take much more than a week and the article has already been on review for two months. After that peer review and then renomination. There is no reason for this to not become a good article and ultimately an FA again, but it is going to require considerable work. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Awards given by the govenment

There was an addition and a removcal and a replacement, regards a low quality claim that the queen didn't give blair an award, clearly this is tabloid twaddle as she doesn't decide such awards they are given by the government of the day. Just because some sunday tabloid false tittle tattle in in an online citation doesn't men we have no editorial control not to repeat it here. Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well put, Rob. It's clearly poorly sourced speculation about the kind of perceived "snub" the tabloids love. I've heard dozens of different explanations of why he hasn't received this honour or has been passed over for the other, all based on the assumption that PMs are generally knighted when they leave office, but nothing to back it up apart from some vague assertion that the last few PMs were. I notice Gordon Brown isn't Sir Gordon 10 months after he left office, so I'm sure the tabloids will be reading between the lines there before long. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the editor whose re-addition of this rubbish hasn't commented any further, I've removed it. We'll need to do something about that honours section at some point, but one bridge at a time! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This was my mistake, I thought this was long standing cited material being removed. Apologies. I have no problem with it being removed, as it is a bit tabloidy. No apologies for failing to respond within the 5 hours hours granted. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries, All's Well That Ends Well, thanks for commenting. Off2riorob (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In his first six years in office Blair ordered British troops ordered into battle five times, more than any other prime minister in British history

This line is in the "War on terror" section, yet no details are given. I think links to the pages of these five battles should be given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.68.3 (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

More importantly, the second "ordered" needs to be removed for the sentence to make sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.thorns (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Works

Shouldn't A Journey be listed under "Works", or is there some policy I'm overlooking? PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 17:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Second Class Honours Degree?

I dispute this assertion. Blair gained a Third Class degree from St.Johns. I know because I was there at Oxford at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.192.60.30 (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you being there at the time is not a good citation - unless you were the examinations officer! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.71.174 (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

This subsection is too short; it needs expansion or merging into another subsection. A another sentence or two about the Omagh bombing is nneded as well as his subsequent meetings with the Omagh Self-Help Group.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A Journey

Can't edit this page, but I think that the last few lines of this paragraph could do with neatening, especially the somewhat unneutral reference to "Blair's policies and legacy of unjustified and criminal war on Iraq" 81.97.131.112 (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

Shouldn't the introduction be updated to mention that Blair's record as the youngest Prime Minister since the Earl of Liverpool has since been surpassed by David Cameron? (92.20.43.27 (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC))

No, because the record still stands. David Cameron is the youngest Prime Minister since Tony Blair. But Tony Blair was the youngest since the Earl of Liverpool. So it's not David Cameron that has broken this record, it is Tony Blair. StephenBHedges (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Tony Blair Africa Governance Initiative

• - Why So Touchy About Questioning Why His Charity Buying Up £8 Billion of African Debt??

According to the Mail On Sunday (<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2060829/Blair-Africa-charity-bids-share-8bn-foreign-aid-budget.html>), Tony Blair is facing questions after one of his charities launched a bid to grab a slice of Britain's £8billion foreign aid budget.Mr Blair has applied to be considered for grants via the Tony Blair Africa Governance Initiative. Curiously, the article points out that the application has been made in the name of the Tony Blair Governance Initiative, omitting the word Africa. His organisation has taken the first steps to become eligible for grants awarded by the Department for International Development to rebuild war-torn countries. The highly sensitive move has prompted concerns over a possible conflict of interest with Mr Blair's complex business dealings.

However, when asked about MPs' fears that the application could conflict with his business activities, a spokesman for the former Prime Minister said: 'On what basis do they claim there is a conflict? There is none, and to claim or imply otherwise is defamatory.'

Seems an odd response, when clarification was all that was being sought - and deeper analysis on this point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.225.59 (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

This unsupported allegation is defamation is a pretty clear response. This is not a location to discuss the daily mails titillating POV. - WP:NOTFORUM - thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Peace envoy?

Blair is now supposedly working for the Quartet (Russia, the USA, the EU and the UN) is his role as a 'Peace' envoy to the Middle East however he doesn't seem to be answerable to anybody in particular and also has his own private company Tony Blair Associates through which he is paid $1,000,000 a year by JP Morgan for advice work. As a peace envoy he is supposed to be helping the Palestinians but he did not lend his considerable clout to their recent bid for recognition for statehood at the UN and he has never condemned Israel no matter what atrocity they commit, such as the bombing of a school in Gaza in which many children died. He is now estimated to be worth $20 million but Tony Blair Associates don't make any details public in Britain or apparently anywhere else. He also found time recently to become Godfather to one of Rupert Murdoch's grand-children. All this was stated in a recently documentary on British Channel 4 presented by Tony Obourne. Some, if not all, of these facts deserve a mention in the article in my opinion. SmokeyTheCat 22:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM - and focus on reliably cited beneficial additions to the article that rise above personal partisan opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This link confirms all that I have written:- http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-102/episode-1

SmokeyTheCat 11:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 December 2011

The film was released in February 2010 in the US. The film The Ghost Writer was released in February 2010 in the US. Rudinsky (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done SmartSE (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hatnote

Why does this article have a hatnote? Exok (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Because not all the topics covered in the disambiguation page are related to this subject. I suggest restoring it, then discussing any changes you wish to make here. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hatnote discussion

The question is, should we retain the hatnote pointing to the Tony Blair disambiguation page? The note was removed under WP:RELATED and WP:NAMB, although not all topics on the page are related to Blair. I've restored it temporarily until we can gain consensus. Any thoughts Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am against a hatnote since none of the topics on the disambiguation page has the title "Tony Blair" and nobody is likely to come to this article having sought one of them. The term "Tony Blair" does not have additional meanings, it does not relate to separate topics that could be referred to by the same title, except in one case which is covered by WP:NOARTICLE which states "hatnotes should not be used for articles that do not exist." The Tony Blair disambiguation page was passed for speedy deletion in 2007, and nothing that I can see has changed in the interim to alter that fact. Exok (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that disambiguation page had just one link - to this article, but someone with admin priveleges should check that. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 January 2012

I think the "Portrayals and cameo appearances" section should mention Stephen Mangan's portrayal of Blair in The Hunt for Tony Blair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.175.4 (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Postnominals

Why does the article for Tony Blair have no postnominals after his name? There should be the "PC" (Privy Council) postnominal after his name (at the start of the article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.146.64 (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The answer is very simple: he doesn't have any postnominals. He is no longer an MP, and "still" didn't receive any honour from the Queen whatsoever. The reason why you can read on this talk page. About the PC postnominal: anyone who is a member of the Privy Council is entitled to use the style "The Right Honourable", not per se the postnominal PC. This postnominal is only used by peers, who already have the style The Right Honourable, and thereby to make the distinction that they are also a Privy Councillor. "PC" is thus not used by commoners. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Reasoning behind Blair not accepting a knighthood

The source makes clear that Blair's lack of interest in a knighthood or peerage is related to the cash for honours scandal that clouded the end of his premiership. Surely that merits inclusion in the Honours section? -- MichiganCharms (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Torture

What about his role in torture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.142.188 (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

According to John Pilger, 'Documents released by the High Court show that Blair allowed British citizens to be abducted and tortured.' http://johnpilger.com/articles/tony-blair-must-be-prosecuted Does anyone have any details about these documents?

Soapboxing material regarding Libya

I didn't like the material that was added as it seems to be a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, and ultimately WP:BLP. Any other opinions? --John (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, any "one journalist" with no actual identity can go gossip whatever they want, it remains useless as usual. Clarificationgiven (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Comeback?

Should something be added about his possible political comeback that has been speculated by the media? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.187.5 (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

War crimes accusations

I've extended the coverage on the accusations of war crimes, which seem salient to me in terms of the public perception of his legacy. To give some sense of this, it's interesting to note that a Google search autocomplete, which I believe is based on Google's statistical models of likelihood of effectiveness in matching user search intent, currently gives the following autocompletion strings for "tony blair", in this order: "tony blair faith foundation", "tony blair biography", "tony blair war crimes", and then, bizarrely, "tony blair antichrist" followed by "tony blair catholic". -- The Anome (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. And shouldn't Tutu's recent observations be mentioned? --John (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

They're in there: there was previously just some stuff about a mock trial that wasn't really very significant at all: Tutu's comments are much more significant, because of the esteem in which he's held internationally. -- The Anome (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that - I would have done it myself if I had the time. SmartSE (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 February 2013

The link to Parachute Regiment under the section titled "Military intervention and the War on Terror" should point to Parachute Regiment (United Kingdom). --190.19.71.158 (talk) 08:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

He was a barrister, right?

I mean, he was, right? Lockesdonkey (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Gap year in France?

It's mentioned in this article, although contradicts an (unsourced) part of this article. Thought I'd mention it for someone to investigate. -- Fluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} 23:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

No immigration policies?

The section on policies is long and detailed, so it is puzzling that there is nothing on Labour's immigration policies during Blair's premiership. They were not declared, but they were fairly clear- especially after the James Cameron scandal that led to the resignation of a minister.

Similarly, in such a long article it's strange that the Ecclestone issue does not get aired. Gravuritas (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Tony Blair Associates

I was wondering what people thought of the Tony Blair Associates (TBA) section? I made a few changes on 7 September to remove various inaccuracies (the reasons are next to the edits). I felt that previously that section appeared to be a vehicle to attack Blair, rather than provide encyclopaedic content. Often the statements made did not reflect the cited source, and there was clear bias in choice of material to include, clearly designed to reflect poorly on Blair, rather than provide a balanced account of what TBA is and its influence/criticism etc and relevance to Blair's life and career.

I feel the current section is now fairly decent. It describes what TBA is, why it was set up and Blairs involvement. It also includes some brief criticism along with TBA's response. The length seems reasonable, and reflects the relatively minor importance to Blair's career, and the fact that the organisation involves more people than just Blair alone (more details about it should really go in a separate article in my opinion). It also seems fairly balanced to me, noting Blair's motivations, criticism of potential conflicts of interest, TBAs responses and so on.

The reason I am posting this here is due a few recent reversions by another user who wants to reintroduce clear anti-Blair bias and inaccurate statements.

For the record, I have no particular love of Blair but the kind of bias that was in this section would irritate me in any wiki article.

Atshal (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I'm the "user who wants to reintroduce clear anti-Blair bias", but I have made one small edit which you have reverted without explanation. I changed the "made clear" in (Blair) "..has made clear he receives no personal profit from this advisory role" to "stated that". Firstly, "made clear" in normal usage means something like "has explained with supporting evidence", which is not true in this case- all that has happened is that Blair's spokesman has said it. Only in political spin-land does such a simple assertion get dignified & distorted into something being "made clear". Instead of "stated that" we could have "said" or "claimed", but I thought that "stated" was value-free.

Furthermore, there is a secondary weasel in the statement- the hard-to-support difference between personal profit and (one presumes) profit for his company, TBAssoc, so I'm not even sure that this statement should be repeated in WP in this form anyway. Most people would find a distinction between personal profit ad profit for one's company laughable. I hope I've "made clear" that "made clear" is unsupportable. Please don't revert it again.

Gravuritas (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Sure, sounds fine to me. I have never deliberately reverted any of your edits as far as I am aware. Atshal (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see that I did accidentally revert your change - I did a block revert of all changes over that time by the person reintroducing the bias, and did not notice yours in there. Sorry! Atshal (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I included the statement made regarding personal profit, as this was Blair's direct response to the criticism received on the issue and seems reasonable to include this. Perhaps try direct quotes around it if you would prefer? Atshal (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks- having had another look, I think it's OK as it stands- he's been accused of something and as you say, that's his response. Each reader is then free to take their own stance on accusation & response.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Atshal is simply attempting to convert the article into hagiography, removing all RS material that is critical, and mealy-mouthing anything that he can't get away with deleting. Really tedious. LudicrousTripe (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi LudicrousTripe. I am actually trying to make the article more neutral, as there is clear anti-Blair bias in some sections (in the case of Tony Blair Associates, some outright untruths). There is plenty of cited valid criticism in the article. There is also the inclusion of material that gives undue weight (e.g. WP:RSUW and WP:NPOV) to particular unflattering opinions of Blair that do not really constitute noteworthy material. Including an offhand mention in a Daily Mail article that Blair attended the opening of an Armani store in the festive period prior to a crisis in the Middle East is a perfect example, and that is why I removed it. An entire section for a single Channel 4 journalistic documentary that speculates on Blair's motivations as special envoy Middle East peace is another example, especially since his role as special envoy is already dealt with in another section. Perhaps a line noting there was criticism would suffice (which already exists in the previous section) Atshal (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

In the quartet

"In the quartet" has been deleted, and the reason given was 'journalistic tittle-tattle'. I don't think that, for instance, the section below is fairly described as tittle-tattle: it's a serious issue and in the absence of a rebuttal, cannot be left out imho. It needs some level of detail to understand the accusation, and so a '...faced criticism..." is not good enough.

According to an episode of the investigative documentary series Dispatches,, broadcast on the UK's Channel 4 in September 2011, Blair has used his Quartet role to gain introductions and proximity to Arab leaders, with whom he then signed private consulting contracts for Tony Blair Associates. He obtained one such contract, worth $40m from the Emir of Kuwait, to advise on reforms, and another from the rulers of the United Arab Emirates

Gravuritas (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gravuritas. An entire section for a single Channel 4 journalistic documentary that speculates on Blair's motivations as special envoy Middle East peace gives this material clear undue weight (e.g. WP:RSUW and WP:NPOV), especially since his role as special envoy is already dealt with in a previous section. Compare this section to, for example, the section of allegations of war crimes, that has multiple significant figures being critical of Blair, and significant media coverage over a prolonged period of time, and is of a similar length. In the section that has been deleted, had there been, say, a formal investigation of Blair, or significant UN figures directly criticising him, and significant media coverage of this, then I would say the section may be worthy of inclusion. Or perhaps if the documentary had uncovered real evidence of wrong doing, which then turned into a significant media story, garnering comments on significant political figures, then the documentary may be worth a mention (but probably not an entire section, even then). But as it stands, the section basically reproduces a journalists interpretation on Blair's possible motives, and speculations on whether conflicts of interests have resulted in Blair benefitting financially. Atshal (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Atshal: Your first sentence is an Error of the excluded middle- it's not true that this material either occupies an entire section or must be deleted in its entirety. As his role as special envoy is mentioned in the previous section, it's clearly possible to move some of the disputed material to that section, and delete the rest of the 'In the quartet' section. Your next point amounts to the same rhetorical error: you're saying that if it's not supported to the same degree as the war crimes allegation, it must be wholly excluded.

The next bit is worryingly POV-like "had there been... a formal investigation of Blair...the section MAY be worthy of inclusion" (my emphasis). May??? Of course if there had been a formal investigation it would need to be in there, occupying a whole section. The documentary did uncover real evidence- of a conflict of interests. The financial payments which constitute a conflict of interests with being a Middle East envoy are not disputed, save as to the quantity, by TB, and he is not supplying alternative amounts. Whether that amounts to wrong-doing should be left to individual readers. Btw- the story was picked up with some additional material by the FT and the Telegraph.

I suggest that the bit I quoted above is possibly the core of the issue, and that it should be added to the TB Assocs section. What do you think? What do you think, Ludicrous Tripe?

Gravuritas (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the original point remains - this is simply a single journalistic documentary, with no ramifications beyond that. No evidence of wrongdoing was exposed, only speculation about motives and the impact of potential conflicts of interest. The latter point about potential conflicts of interests has already been mentioned in the previous section, so is not "wholly excluded" as you claim. By all means include the documentary as a citation for that sentence but I still see no justification for including an entire section on a documentary (and it does occupy an entire section - the material is drawn entirely from the documentary and an article discussing the documentary). There is no impact beyond discussion in the media (e.g. reviews and analysis of the documentary) so I don't really a reason for having a section on this at all. Atshal (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding the citation into the previous conflict of interest section. I think it remains for someone to justify why specific claims regarding wrongdoing by Blair in this role should be included, rather than the more general criticism of potential conflicts of interest. As far as I am aware there have no official investigations, or official condemnation of him. Currently there appears to be only journalistic speculations and attempts to build arguments around the issue, without any real wider ramifications.

Also, to reiterate, I have no particular love of Tony Blair. I am just conscious of people using wikipedia to attempt to paint particular pictures of individuals or parties they do not like, and that is not what wikipedia is for. Simply because an editor is able to cite something correctly, does not mean it has a place in an article. Atshal (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think your edit with the cite in the TB Assocs is adequate- it loses the issue unless someone clicks through to multiple citations. For clarity, there are 2 criticisms that have been levelled

1. TB Assocs accepting money from the Kazakhstan government, which some people think is not a nice government. The accusation and TBs response were & are still covered in the TB Assocs section.

2. A (or several) conflicts of interest between TB being in the quartet, trying to broker peace between several different factions and simultaneously having major financial interests in some of the parties/ governments/companies who are involved in the area in question. This was covered, possibly too extensively in the "In the quartet" section which you deleted, and which I was proposing was reduced and merged into the "TB Assocs" section.

So, for the moment I've added back what I think is the core section of the conflict of interest issue, into the TB Assocs section. I am concerned that, given that you seem to be confusing these two criticisms even after having been greatly involved in editing them, there is a large risk that readers will also conflate the two issues. If that's the case possibly we should go back to a separate section for "In the quartet" albeit with some trimming done.

I don't accept your comment about official investigations: if WK's contents were restricted to what officials said and did it would be a piss-poor encyclopedia. I'm glad you've made your way from 'journalistic tittle-tattle' to 'journalistic speculations' but I think you still have further to go in order to acknowledge that the basis of these stories is not in doubt: the only speculation is how much TB gets paid from these various sources.

Gravuritas (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I certainly believe if you want to include specific allegations, then you need to justify those with something other than a single documentary, or commentary on the documentary. A simple sentence saying he received criticism for potential conficts of interest is perfectly fine for a single primary source such as this. There is no need for anything other than a general summary of the journalism, unless there are other sources that clarify why a particular accusation is noteworthy. If we don't have this then we could include details from every single piece of journalism on Blair and the article would be massive and unwieldy. You definitely need something else to justify, else it seems like clear undue weight to me. Atshal (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I', not trying to be unpleasant at all by reverting or discussing this, I just genuinely feel it is a bit unbalanced and unfair to start including specific material that is essentially journalistic speculation. Mentioning the documentary was made and was critical of TBA is fine (especially since there was further media coverage of the documentary), but I don't think selecting bits of material from it to expand on, without additional reasons, is the correct way to include it. If there were additional investigations about particular issues in the documentary then that is fine to include those issues, but all the media coverage around the time was just about the documentary itself (reviews, further speculation etc.)Atshal (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I think on this issue, the sentence as it stands errs slightly in the direction of "favourable to Blair" but I'm prepared to leave it at that. Happy Sunday. Gravuritas (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Bliar

the wikilink coems to this page so there needs to be SOME mention of it. I agree mine was not sourced here, but I was trying to put it someplace (and satire seems the best, not the lead) and have someone else work on it (hence the hidden note). The reason was because of the deceptive (granted, if not deceitful) intelligence, and thats been mentioned. but perhaps someone else can find a better mention/explanation of it. I just think there needs to be mention somewhere as its 1. notable, 2. wikilinked here(Lihaas (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)).

I don't think that we need to mention it just because it redirects here. Plenty of things redirect to plenty of articles, and not all need explaining (after all, "Bliar" is a plausible typo for "Blair"). If there is to be an explanation, the citation need to demonstrate that it's a particularly notable term, and it probably should appear down in the "satire" section. However, this really should only be mentioned (and written more objectively) if we can find adequate evidence that this is notable. — Richard BB 11:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we start including all pejorative nicknames of politicians? Why Bliar and not Teflon Tony and Bambi as well, or Red Ed in Miliband's page, or The Welsh Windbag on Kinnock's page? I feel that including pejorative nicknames attributed by opponents of politicians is somewhat problematic and begins to look POV. In addition there is already a page for nicknames of prime ministers here, and inclusion in this general list of Prime Ministers' nicknames suffices. Atshal (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

In addition, there is an argument for changing the redirect of 'Bliar' to the Prime Minister nickname page rather than here, since you raise it Lihaas. Atshal (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Its certainly not a typo, its purposely written on placards, etc.

However, IF it is notable enought to cross the WP:NOTABLE threshold for wikipedia to have article, then it is notable enough to mention. Thats waht a section like satire can do. And I'm not saying every mention, I am saying notable mentions, and as weve seen this is existent here.

We do have alternatives like War of Northern Agression that are not redirects. We could do that?

Perhaps, Atshal's suggestion is better.

CFrisis solved? That was easy and amicable

Resolved

(Lihaas (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)).

Sourcing

Just a reminder that WP:BLPSOURCES definitely applies here, and so we cannot use the Daily Mail or other tabloids to source it. --John (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this - particularly since the material you remove is essentially tittle tattle of a couple of journalists and not encyclopaedic. Atshal (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a tabloid in format as are a great many reliable sources. While the "gossip columns" of many newspapers are ill-suited for contentious claims, it is perverse indeed to rule out any source because of its format. Most major British newspapers are, indeed, "tabloids" but this does not make them unusable in BLP. Collect (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a tabloid of the worst kind, as it has a reputation for publishing lies about living people. It shall be my pleasure to remove any sources I see of this type from articles on living people, in accordance with BLPSOURCES. I will also be prepared to back this up with blocks where necessary, then put these blocks up for review. Anybody adding Daily Mail sources to articles on living people needs to be aware that they are out of line. The format thing is a complete red herring; it is your red herring and only you know why you introduced it. --John (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Gosh you do not like it but you ignore many prior discussions at BLP/N and RS/N when you make such a blanket statement. And your acts here and on other BLPs in excising its use where there is no contentiousness involved is pure WP:POINT at its most egregious. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken on several grounds. Furthermore your attempts to mischaracterise my arguments and motives are noted. I invite you to justify the section and sourcing which is in question on this article, or else to shuffle off and do something useful. --John (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Collect - actually look at the articles concerned, in the context they are written, and then try to justify them as reliable sources for an encylopdia. Atshal (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I am fairly well-known at BLP/N <g> and the issue here is not the claim but the apparent use of claiming that the source is not RS - but the discussions at RS/N and BLP/N have not conformed to the claim here that the Daily Mail can never be used. Indeed, my position has been oft-stated: Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained . This is not to be construed as "I don't like this television station or that newspaper, therefore I must excise them from Wikipedia" which, IMO, is fallacious as a position. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for clarifying your general position. This specific discussion though is really about whether this passage belongs in the article, with the sourcing given. Do you think it does? I don't. --John (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree that there should be a flexible attitude to sources. But the Daily Mail has to be taken with a big pinch of salt, especially when commenting on a public figure that they are well known to target and vilify. There is not much in the cited sources that I think merit inclusion here. Atshal (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPSOURCES#Reliable_sources is very, very, very clear. Tabloids are not to be used as the sole sources of contentious information. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the "tabloid" issue, this does not seem significant enough to go into the article per WP:NOTNEWS.William Jockusch (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely. Who on Earth cares if he was spotted at an Armani store? This is not relevant, significant, nor encyclopaedic. — Richard BB 07:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Disputed text

During the first nine days of the Gaza War, in January 2009, Blair was allegedly spotted at the opening of the Armani store at Knightsbridge. Aides said he had been in phone contact with other world leaders since the fighting began.

Money

http://gulfnews.com/news/world/tony-blair-pockets-more-than-150-000-for-hour-s-work-1.1254805 86.168.142.77 (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

In the first years of the New Labour government...

I would like to suggest a mention of his introduction of 'Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997' which meant that as of 1997 handguns have been almost completely banned for private ownership. As this is a significant event in firearms ownership in Britain. Russcelt (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like the fact that there is a monetary award for anybody who attempts a citizens arrest of Tony Blair for war crimes. Quite surprised that this isn't included, where is the criticism section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.14.114 (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Even without monetary award, the fact that "citizen arrests" were tried unsuccessfully should at least be mentioned in the subsection about war crimes. Wikipedia seems to filter this information whereas it is available on newspapers/blogs. 01:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.136.52 (talk)

Tony And Wendi Murdoch

It looks like Tony Blair will be named as the third party in Rupert and Wendi Murdoch's divorce proceedings. Twobells (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Tony Blair denies affair (Coachtripfan (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC))

A spokesman for Tony Blair denied this after the Twitter crowd got itself worked up. WP:BLP applies here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether he did it or not may not matter, as long Rupert Murdoch believes it, see http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s3991009.htm

Today we see 'things' about Tony Blair's Bloomberg speech. What is fascinating is, that all the British press is scathing about that speech, while before they couldn't praise Blair enough. It is somewhat unsettling to see that. This turnaround makes much of what's in the media look like depending on the friendship or otherwise with a newspaper proprietor. Are we fed loaded scribble? 121.209.56.202 (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

A number of

I have been repeatedly reverted when trying to improve the wording of In the first years of the New Labour government, Blair's government implemented a number of its 1997 manifesto pledges, introducing the National Minimum Wage Act, Human Rights Act and Freedom of Information Act, and carrying out devolution, establishing the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Zero, pi, a billion and negative 1.75 are all numbers and this is weasel wording. It would be better to list which ones weren't implemented, if that is what you want to convey. Obviously this would need a source. --John (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

'A number of' was inserted to correct a previous wording which implied that all pledges were fulfilled. The wording which includes 'a number of' implies correctly that some pledges were fulfilled, and others weren't. Insert your 'pi, a billion, and -1.75' into the sentence and it's clearly nonsense, so you are committing a straw man error. Inserting zero instead of 'a number' makes grammatical sense, but it doesn't correspond with the normal English usage of 'a number' in this context.

Your new wording lacks balance in that it flags the fulfilled pledges and ignores those unfulfilled. I'm happy with changing away from 'a number of' so long as any new wording correctly conveys the mixed result of the Labour govt in terms of pledge fulfillment.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with John's changes - his version is just as accurate and reads better. "a number of" is superfluous and adds nothing. Both versions are fine in my opinion, although if people really care about improving it, maybe they could find citations for these? 137.222.114.243 (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

With respect to John, who I am sure is arguing in good faith, I totally see where Gravuritas is coming from, and agree with him that "a number of" in this context is not weasel wording (as it would be in the case of, for instance, "a number of critics said...") so long as we are talking about a definable total number of pledges made in the 1997 party manifesto: in which case "a number of" means "some", which are then defined by the rest of the sentence. It seems cumbersome to list which pledges weren't implemented in the lead. Alfietucker (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. @137.222.114.243- you're plain wrong in asserting that 'a number of' adds nothing, and you are displaying the same lack of balance as John. The current version mentions the fulfilled pledges, and the unfulfilled pledges are not mentioned. 'A number of' flagged that only some pledges were fulfilled. Propagandists for Blair will be very happy. Are you?

Gravuritas (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

"A number of" is right down the middle of WP:WEASEL and is poor English and poor writing. The number described by the previous version is clearly four. If you want to flag up that there were some election promises which were not followed through then list them, with a good source, not necessarily in the lead. As regards "propagandists for Blair", see WP:TRUTH. --John (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You're now committing the error of the excluded middle. According to you, the only two actions possible ways forward are 1.to list the failed pledges (both boring and possibly contentious) or 2. to agree to your changes. That's a very limited view of the possibilities. How about the change to 'four' as I've just done?

Gravuritas (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Social reforms garbage

We shoul be ashamed of the social reforms section. It's a propaganda list of some of the changes enacted, with an emphasis on the intention of the reforms and, even for those elements added recently, little or no mention of outcomes. The lack of balance is breathtaking. For instance, stakeholder pensions are mentioned, but there is no mention of the increased tax take from pension funds, resulting in the killing off of final-salary pensions in the private sector, nor is the massive increase in unfunded public sector pension liabilities covered. Garbage. The latest puff-piece added is particularly one-sided. Gravuritas (talk) 05:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the material removed in this edit has major issues with style, because it reads like a press release or parliamentary answer. This needs a rewrite to be encyclopedic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Kendall Myers

This article contains a quote by "Kendall Myers, a senior analyst at the State Department" regarding the "special relationship" between the US and UK. There should be mention somewhere that this man was a Cuban spy... doesn't that dramatically alter the significance of the quote... this man wasn't really speaking on behalf of the state department or the US for that matter, but as a SPY for CUBA, an enemy of both the US and the UK. That fact completely negates any semblance of credibility, yet the authors nevertheless call him "a senior analyst at the state department" as though he speaks for the US govt. This is highly misleading to the uninformed reader. --Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 05:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair point- added to article

Gravuritas (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Collapse of Royal Bank of Scotland

I find it extraordinary that there is no mention of the role of Tony Blair (or Gordon Brown on the appropriate page) in the collapse of the RBS, given that New Labour's move from little intervention in banking to no intervention was the fundamental cause of the collapse. Bougatsa42 (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Secret kickback comission deal with Saudi oil firm

Re [3] which I propose adding, I would like feedback from other editors because of the nondisclosure requirements of the contract, and allegations that it reflects some degree of corruption, in that and other news reports, and moreso on commentary sites such as e.g. Reddit. How should the news report be worded and how should the allegations of corruption be worded? EllenCT (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2014

This page describes Tony Blair as a philanthropist. I would suggest that this is unnecessarily generous to a man that sent a nation to war on a false premise that led to the death of uncounted numbers of ordinary people. I request that this is changed. Ambrielx (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Inclined to agree, I would not say he is known as a philanthropist and giving that equal weighting seems excessive. He is a politician and now political consultant(?) who has carried out charitable work. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2014 (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. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Philanthropist?

The very first sentence claims he is a philanthropist. Not only is there no reference for it, but it's hard to believe as a major part of this article is about alleged war-crimes. I suggest simply removing this line - a few lines about charity for kids in england is really kinda a bad joke compared to lots of people seeing him as a warmonger, but the main point is that there is no reference and putting that in the very first line is kinda unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.187.202 (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I came to this talk page to say the same thing. It sounds like cheap advertizing. The philantropist part should be removed unless there is at least a single neutral source which refers to him that way. Simply writing that he "is" a philantropist like "1 and 1 is 2" is clearly not the proper way to begin an article about a controversial politician. To some it may even sound like satire or as Mr Blair himself wrote it. 79.243.158.204 (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Was 1997 really a "landslide"?

Even in 1997 Labour did not get as many votes as the Conservatives did in 1979, 1987 and 1992. (RobMcAndrew (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC))

yes it was. We go off what sources say, and they say landslide. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 22:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Britain uses the First-past-the-post voting system. In terms of the share of the vote, in 1997 Labour received 43.2% of the vote, which is more than the 42.4% that Margaret Thatcher received in 1983. Both were regarded as landslide victories by the media.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Getting less than 50% of the vote is hardly a landslide. In any case, in terms of the number of votes 1997 was definitely not a landslide victory at all. (RobMcAndrew (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC))

In that case, no modern UK political party has had a landslide. Even Clement Attlee in 1945 only managed 47.7%, and Harold Macmillan in 1959 49.4%. It is seats not votes that count at Westminster, and a majority of over 100 seats is generally considered to be a landslide victory by the media. Labour's 179 seat majority in 1997 was huge and gave Tony Blair a mandate to do pretty much whatever he liked. This was the largest government majority since 1935.[4]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

They didn't do anything though, which is why the number of votes plummeted at the next election. The term "landslide" is misleading and should be removed from the introduction. (RobMcAndrew (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC))

The term "landslide" was often employed by political commentators and media in 1997. Unless you know of any more recent analysis that disproves this, it's not up to us to reassess and decide it wasn't. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The number of seats is very misleading. In 1997 Labour got fewer votes than the Conservatives in 1979, 1987 and 1992. In any case the boundaries and the system are both rigged in Labour's favour, which is why in 2005 they got a majority of 66 on just 35% of the vote, yet in 2010 the Conservatives got two million more votes and 36% of the vote yet we ended up with a hung parliament. 1997 was not a landslide in any real sense. (RobMcAndrew (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC))

You're not adding anything to the discussion by repeating yourself. The sources say it was a landslide victory - therefore this is what we use. Judging by your limited edit history it might be worth looking up the guide to reliable sourcing and about editing from a neutral point of view GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

1997 wasn't a landslide compared to the Conservatives in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992. (RobMcAndrew (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC))

Your opinion and analysis is noted. Now please notice that no-one is disputing, or agreeing, with your analysis, we are just saying that it is not suitable for inclusion. Until you have a good reliable source from a notable authority saying the same, the article will not include it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Even if the press used the word "landslide" it very clearly wasn't. I don't know how the next election can be allowed to take place when the boundaries are rigged in one party's favour. (RobMcAndrew (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC))

Agreed with Escape Orbit and GimliDotNet. Also, any editor posting further on this thread needs to keep in mind Wikipedia's talk page guidelines especially the following: "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor". Shearonink (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

BLPSOURCES

Per WP:BLPSOURCES we cannot use material that is sourced from tabloids here. --John (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That is not what the policy says. It actually says use reliable sources and avoid Tabloid journalism. May I remind you that The Times is a tabloid newspaper as well as USA Today and many important and reliable papers. We should be using judgement on a case by case basis not applying a blanket ban because of the printing format of the paper. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This is John's interpretation of WP:BLPSOURCES. The policy is intended to prevent the addition of controversial material that can be sourced only to tabloid newspapers, such as the Philip Mould incident.[5] When a statement can be sourced only to a tabloid newspaper, the question that needs to be asked is whether the material can be sourced somewhere else. Since this is an important quote, it should ideally be available somewhere other than in the DM. It is here in the Express, but may well be churnalism. Tony Blair apparently made the comment at a speech in July 2014 to the Progress group [6], but it is a bit of a surprise that no broadsheet newspaper has the same quote. The inclusion of this quote in the article could give it a higher profile and give the impression that it is reliably sourced, when the sourcing is not ideal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Ian and Philafrenzy. John's blanket deletions would only be acceptable were all the content deleted either blatantly false or pure fabrications. The DM operate a far higher degree of journalistic standards (but not ethics) than we do here, IMO. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It is plausible that Tony Blair said something like this. David Frost denied that he was worth £200 million in the (much more reliable) Guardian in July 2011.[7] With the Blair quote, it is a pity that the Daily Mail is the only source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It is potentially confusing, perhaps especially for American editors who have a different selection of sources in their country. The ban is not related to the printing format of course, but to publications with a poor record for printing inaccurate material and inviting the victims to sue if they want a retraction. We do not operate like that here and so we cannot use material sourced in this way. I appreciate the efforts of User:Philafrenzy in finding more reputable sourcing for this material; editors should be really clear that nothing remotely controversial (which would include this) can be added to a BLP sourced only to the Daily Mail. I was prepared to block for this, and I am very glad I did not have to. Well done, User:Philafrenzy. --John (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I want to make the point here that there is no reliable source for Blair's wealth. In all the articles cited, tabloid and otherwise, there are simply journalistic speculations of his wealth. Blair himself has said these speculations are nonsense, and it is self evident from the widely divergent figures - which are never themselves never sourced and are likely to be plucked from thin air. While it is verifiable that this varying figures have been reported, the figures themselves are clearly not reliable and therefore should not really be in the article. Atshal (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to expand a little bit. If the section is to be included, it has to read more like... "There have been speculations on the extent of Blair's wealth. A estimates this to be in the region of £X, B estimates at least £Y, C estimates an income of £Z., Blair himself claims most estimates to be "wild overestimates" and his worth somewhere under £20m." Given the speculative nature of the estimates, and likely the constantly changing nature, of Blair's personal finances I don't really see much value in having this section at all. The economist article that is currently cited is just a figure plucked from somewhere and included in an Economist politics column - it is hardly a good source. There was a better article, for example, earlier this year in the Telegraph (but is still just an educated guess). Atshal (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you say Atshal but removing the whole section is not justified. He is the first British PM of modern times to make a fortune in this way by trading on his political contacts and the matter of his wealth has been extensively covered in the press. He has spoken about the subject himself and it is an important part of his story. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that Atshal's concerns can easily be addressed by simply adding the word "estimated". Estimating wealth is a long-running practice, for example the various Forbes lists and the Sunday Times Rich List, and the methodology is well-established. Edwardx (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I tried some new wording. My conclusion is that he is richer than he likes to admit, that's why he has the complicated corporate structure that he has, but not as rich as some say he is, as the structure and all the people he employs also cost a lot of money. This has been well gone into elsewhere, try a Google search for Tony Blair Limited Liability Partnership, but could stand to be slightly expanded here. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Media estimates of a person's wealth are pretty much irrelevant and are often challenged by the person involved. I doubt if Tony Blair is short of a few quid, but the exact figure is hard to say. Wikipedia articles should be wary of including media estimates of a person's wealth, even from supposedly reliable sources like the Forbes list and the Sunday Times Rich List.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

But why are they "irrelevant", and why should we be "wary"? Edwardx (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Nobody without access to all the relevant paperwork knows for sure. Things like company records may be publicly available, but the full picture is known only to the person concerned. To repeat John's point, it is only newspapers like the Daily Mail that are perpetually obsessed with the "how much is your house worth?" angle and try to work it into every story they write. Tony Blair's wealth - particularly since he stopped being Prime Minister and started accepting large fees for personal appearances and other work - has been the subject of considerable speculation. It is worth mentioning in the article that he denies some of the figures that have been bandied about, but the estimates of his wealth are just that, estimates.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what the article does say, isn't it? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The current wording is OK. Two of the citations were trimmed because the Telegraph cite is enough. The other two were repetitive, and the Times cite required a subscription, which is never ideal if the same material is available without a subscription.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Tony Blair's wealth is back in the news today. In an interview with Vanity Fair he hints that his wealth is around £10 million.[8]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the second sentence from the Economist should be removed. As someone noted above it's from an opinion piece, gives no detail or sources and I suspect it is probably an excessive figure too. Given that the rest of the section correctly says there is no way to accurately calculate his wealth this seems to give too much weight to the figure of £60m. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Just made that change. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

1. The Sun and SoS, the old NotW, the D&S Express, the DM and MoS, and dailymail.co.uk (Mail Online), and even the Morning Star and the Socialist Worker, are not inherently unreliable, per se.
2. A British, British-born (expatriate) or British-based (foreign) multi-millionaire's personal wealth are obviously necessarily a rough estimate, since no millionaire, multi-millionaire or billionaire of full capacity and sound and reasonable mind is going to let journalists (and their paper's own accountants and auditors) audit through his personal wealth every year. Obviously, the Times and Sunday Times, the Daily and Sunday Telegraph and the Financial Times are the most reliable on estimated wealth, since they are traditionally the papers of the British business and financial community generally.
3. The Philip Mould incident, so-called, was obviously a case of simple (innocent) defamation, which had since been retracted. That doesn't really make an article by "Legal Bizzle" [9], Jon Witterick [10], "Commonly Known as Dom" (Dominic Lohan) [11] or this article [12] by a disgruntled ex-SWP member in CiF any more reliable than one in the Mail, does it?! -- Urquhartnite (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

should be more info of the media-policitcal nexus

there should be more info on Blair and Murdoch relationship (plus Blair with other heads of government) - also what about the alleged affair with Wendi Deng

In February 5, 2014, the London Daily Telegraph published a report claiming Wendi Deng had a crush on Tony Blair, leading to her divorce from Murdoch. The report stated that Murdoch began to hear rumors about his wife in 2012 and is said to have interviewed staff members at his various homes to ask them what they had seen. According to the newspaper, Murdoch learned that Blair had visited Deng at the Carmel ranch on more than one occasion. Blair allegedly spent the weekend of April 27, 2013, with Deng at the property. Other sources are quoted as placing Blair and Deng at The Carlyle in New York, on a private yacht, and at Murdoch's home in London. To make matters worse, Deng's letter to herself where she described her torment in missing Blair was recently published by Vanity Fair, raising speculation that there was more to Deng's relationship with Blair than friendship. It is this letter that was said to be the last straw for Murdoch to separate from his wife of 14 years, reports said. As a result of Murdoch's suspicion that Blair had had an affair with Deng, he ended his long-standing association with Blair in 2014.

The article mentions this briefly, but the sources quoted above rely excessively on rumour and speculation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

New Photo?

Surely a better photo could be found than the one that is being used currently. Why would you use a photo where he is clearly talking and not making a neutral expression?

It's as if the editors of the page deliberately tried to find the worst possible photo they could find. It's that bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extremeftww (talk • contribs) 19:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with getting photos of leaders is that the good ones are often not available freely, so we do not have copyright to them and cannot use them. That said, it does look like a particularly bad photo, if you can find a better photo anywhere then I would happy with a change Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Melvyn Bragg's claim that "family problems" brought Blair close to resignation

I am wondering whether to add the following sentence to the 'family' section:

According to Labour peer Melvyn Bragg, Blair nearly resigned due to family problems in May 2004.

My source for that is Sky News: http://news.sky.com/story/296909/blair-nearly-quit-over-family-problems

Clearly the fact of Bragg's claim is verifiable information, and Melvyn Bragg is a very significant person to have made such a claim. However, my slight hesitation in including it is whether a claim by a single (albeit noteworthy) person is itself sufficiently noteworthy to warrant a mention. Clearly if there was verifiable evidence of corroboration then it would be highly noteworthy, but there isn't. (The nature of the claimed family problems was not spelt out, although Bragg said they were unrelated to his marriage.)

What do you reckon?

Thanks, --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It has WP:WEIGHT problems because it is a single source. It is also anecdotal, and doesn't go into any detail about what the problems were. I don't think it is notable enough for a mention.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting. I hadn't really given consideration to the number of sources being an issue. Looking a little further, I find the claims mentioned in further sources describing Cherie Blair's denial of them: in this from The Independent and this from The Mirror (Highbeam.com link). There is also this in the Guardian, which includes the following: Downing Street was furious at what they saw as a failure in judgment by an old friend of the Blairs when he spoke during a live interview of the "tremendous stress" the prime minister had been under in the spring. (There is also this piece on the original claims, seemingly independently written, in Sydney Morning Herald.) Given additional sources, does this change things? Though of course, Cherie's denial would certainly warrant a mention if so - maybe:

According to Labour peer Melvyn Bragg, Blair nearly resigned due to family problems in May 2004, a claim denied by Cherie Blair.

It looks like, all said and done, it caused a minor stir because of who Bragg is, so probably warrants a sentence. (In fact it appears from the sources that Cherie's denial was of Tony having considered resigning, rather than any explicit denial of there having been family problems; the sentence I propose above doesn't really spell this out, but I don't think it needs to.) Of course, it isn't for us to take sides on whether the claim was true or not.

What do you think?

Thanks, --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I have now found this piece in the SMH (a couple of days later) claiming that the details were so serious that it would have been irresponsible to publish them. This would at least be a reasonable explanation for why Bragg did not go into any details. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)