Talk:Yo, Blair

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Yo, Blair. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Yo, Blair at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on August 5, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why does this exist?

Uh, who cares? Why can't this be merged into G8? Shadow1 16:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I listened to the transcrpit and he clearly (to me at least) said Yeah blair and not yo. I am an american raised in Los Angeles. I also cannot tell the diffrence between caught/cot,(los angeles is part of the 40% which merged these vowels) but i am pretty sure that is not relevant here.

jestrada5

Blair vs Rice

What is probably the most important aspect of the incident is missing from the article: Blair begging Bush to send him and sort out the "shit", and Bush telling him to stay put because Condie was already going to handle it. 83.67.217.254 23:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this exist?

Why do we need a whole article about a greeting Bush used? JIP | Talk 08:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because its significance, in Britain at least, was much wider. There is also some interesting etymological stuff. LymeRegis 23:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misquote

I've changed this article to state that its misquote. There was a BBC radio programme http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainframe.shtml?http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/afternoon_reading about this misquote. Video sites can lead you to plenty video references to the actual video where he clearly says "Yeah Blair" --Z o l t a r 10:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the language report (sic)

Susie Dent's the langauge report (Oxford, 2007), which post-dates this article by at least year, appears to draw quite heavily on it: at least its references, including to the Sunday Times and Private Eye. IXIA (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poodle

The use of poodle in international affairs does not depend on Lloyd George; suggesting it does, without source, is WP:SYNTH. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except it hasn't particularly been used in international affairs. It has been bandied about in British domestic politics. LymeRegis (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source

Is this source a fitting one to use to make a major change to the article? --John (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can use these [1] [2] and check 17 seconds in of this video [3] Govgovgov (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are already in the article. The YouTube link won't really show anything. Any better sources? Perhaps there is a compromise we can come to. --John (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the video he clearly says "Yeah, Blair" and I don't want the article to misinform readers any longer. I don't know what's better than those sources. My edit just let readers know that it was actually "Yeah, Blair" and left the rest of the article as referring to it at "Yo, Blair" so I don't know what to compromise on. Govgovgov (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe leaving the rest of the article as "Yo, Blair" is a compromise. Govgovgov (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we would need more sources to enact that kind of change. Let's see what others think. --John (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is a graveyard so I don't think any more people are coming. I concede that most source use "Yo, Blair", however, some sources use "Yeah, Blair", others point out the mistake and audio of the conversation clearly shows it to be "Yeah, Blair". Although the OR rule may prevent us from using the audio argument, the article shouldn't be left wrong because of it. Govgovgov (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If most sources use "Yo, Blair", we cannot allow one editor to use their own interpretation of an audio track to rewrite this article. We follow the sources and we do not conduct this type of original research. --John (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: "Yeah, Blair" or "Yo, Blair"

Should the article state that it was actually "Yeah, Blair" or ignore that because it was popularised as "Yo, Blair"? Govgovgov (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed edit was removed and what I want the RfC to decide on [4]. Here are some sources: [5] [6] and check 17 seconds in of this video [7] for proof that it was "Yeah". Govgovgov (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The truth of the matter is that it probably was "yeah", but most of the mainstream media transcribed it as "yo", the comment about which forms the majority of this article and the subsequent discussion of the political relationship between the U.S. and UK. The article already notes that some news outlets thought it was "Yeah", so it's not really misleading. To be honest, neither leader has been in power for some time, so it's all rather old news now. Bob talk 00:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned because readers will read this article and think it was "Yo" when it was "Yeah". Is it possible to have an audio recording of it on this page? A description under it should mention that it's been reported as "Yeah". That option will obey WP:UNDUE and give the readers the correct information if they play the recording. Govgovgov (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Yeah, Blair" - Did a quick search engine test on this one which leads me to believe that most sources use "Yeah, Blair". Per WP:COMMONNAME, I'd rename this article to reflect that, and explain early in the lead that it was popularized to "Yo". NickCT (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leave title as Yo. It's only well-known because of that. The text itself is OK.IXIA (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing the point?

This article (and this talk page) seems to spend a lot of time on whether he said "Yo", or "Yeah", but misses the central point; addressing Blair by his surname (as he might to a servant, or a hireling) was disrespectful of the Prime Minister's position as an equal (Bush wouldn't have addressed the President of Russia as "Putin", or the Chancellor of Germany as "Merkel") hence the comments about Blair being no more than a "poodle"; I've put something in, but the point may need expanding... Swanny18 (talk)

That's original research on your part and I've removed it. None of the sources specifically mention that, if you have an RS that does, it can be re-added with proper citations. JesseRafe (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research, Jesse? I thought I was stating the obvious: What part exactly do you feel needs a reliable source?

That addressing someone by their last name only is talking down to them, and insulting to someone of equal rank? this lot seem to think so, though I doubt any of them would be acceptable under WP:RS; what did you have in mind?

That the correct way to address the British PM would be "Mr Prime Minister"? I thought the source given confirmed that.

Or that the significance of this was that it was indicative to the British public of the master/servant relationship existing between the US and the UK? Several comments at the AfD pointed this up, though it isn't at all plain here; and the disquiet in the UK over that relationship is explored extensively at the two linked articles (here and here). It's also touched on in the source on the page, and in the external links, yet there's hardly anything in the text itself.

If you are unhappy with what I wrote, how would you suggest the point is better made? Swanny18 (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't rewrite it in any way because I don't recognize your point as being encyclopedic in any way, so you're asking me to argue the impossible. It's your opinion. In many cultures calling someone by their given name is disrespectful, the complete opposite of the essay of personal opinion you just wrote about addressing someone by their surname. Neither, though, is notable for an encyclopedia, which this is. JesseRafe (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]