Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Tony Blair

Former featured articleTony Blair is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 28, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 19, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
May 26, 2006Featured article reviewKept
June 19, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
July 4, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
April 18, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article

Can we hyperlink the prefix sir in front of his name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Jocob Philip Smith (talk • contribs) 19:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Blair Rock Opera?

Under portrayals, it might be worth mentioning that Harry Hill created a rock opera that toured the UK in 2023: [1]https://tonyblairrockopera.co.uk 86.27.111.130 (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent unsourced additions

@Jambo5555 - Do you have a source for your claims that Blair is placed "in the top teir [sic] of British prime ministers" or that he "often ranks highly" in historical rankings of them? You've failed to provide one in eight edits and your vague gesturing to "historians, other scholars, the public, journalists and MPs" in your edit summary catastrophically fails WP:V. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim,
let's sort this out. Sorry for 'gesturing' and 'catastrophically failing'. I'm judging 'ranking highly' as top ten, but you can dispute that.
Academics:
November 2004, https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/rating-british-prime-ministers. Tony Blair ranked 6th.
August 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5294024.stm. Tony Blair ranked 3rd.
August 2010, https://web.archive.org/web/20100806030353/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7923790/Gordon-Brown-third-worst-PM-since-1945-poll-of-historians-finds.html. Tony Blair ranked 3rd.
October 2016, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-worst-prime-minister-ranking-third-since-ww2-a7358171.html. Tony Blair ranked 3rd.
July 2021, https://theconversation.com/theresa-may-joint-worst-post-war-prime-minister-say-historians-and-politics-professors-in-new-survey-163912. Tony Blair ranked 3rd.
Public (admittedly, these are breif and not recently published):
June 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/6242715.stm. Blair ranked 3rd.
October 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7647383.stm. Blair ranked 6th.
Journalistic: Doesn't rank highly, I shouldn't have listed that.
Members of Parliament:
May 2015, http://politicsblog.ac.uk/2015/05/05/the-prime-ministerial-ratings-game-a-parliamentary-perspective/. Blair ranked 3rd.
I'm sorry that I made unsourced edits. I assumed that the 'historical rankings of prime ministers' wikipedia article would be sufficent reference. I honestly believe this is relevant to a overview of Blair's position as prime minister, and within the wider context of British politics. I'm sorry you're taking issue with this, I'm not out to execute a imposition of a Tony Blair wikipedia page, I just tried to make a edit I honestly though would be helpful.
Thanks. Jambo5555 (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these are a bit iffy, like politicsblog and theconversation. Some, like The Independent, are good. If you want to add that, you can put it in the article body itself rather than in the lead. PS: I personally like Blair. I don't like unverified info. That's what I'm taking issue with: not you. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay fair enough.
I think I'm just going to leave it. I get what you're saying, certainly politiicsblog isn't a good source, and like you say historical rankings are a bit sporadic and patchy. Jambo5555 (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. All the best for the future — Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I know this has been discussed many a time but I think we should have an image for when he was in office probably a photo used in the 2005 United Kingdom general election infobox as it is an up to date image for when he was in office. RealTaxiDriver (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TBH I'm not a fan of Tony Blair WEF (cropped). This is another photo where he is pulling a weird face, and it would be better to have one with a more natural expression.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He actually was in office in 2010, the time of the current image, as special envoy. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't his main office. For instant David Miliband has portraits whilst he is President of the International Rescue Committee but he still has his 2007-2010 portrait. RealTaxiDriver (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He does? I've looked at c:Category:David Miliband, and I can't find a portrait of him as president. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that there are photos of him when he was in office. RealTaxiDriver (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not portraits, though. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the right honourable is hyperlinked, shouldn't the Sir Prefix be as well? Edward Jocob Philip Smith (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No because people generally know what "Sir" means in this context. ... discospinster talk 21:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fiction and satire

Please add the following to the subsection Blair in fiction and satire:

Director Terry Gilliam and his co-screenwriter Charles McKeown have stated that the character of Tony Shepard, a dubious entrepreneur and conman who turns out to be involved in illegal organ harvesting from impoverished children, in Gilliam's film The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009) is based on "a certain Tony B. Liar", who "would say the most insane things and probably he'd believe them himself".[1][2]

--2003:DA:CF04:925:E8C9:37BF:66C0:7591 (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jolin, Dan (March 2009). "A Film by Heath Ledger and Friends...". Empire. pp. 109–113.
  2. ^ Randell, Karen (2013). The Cinema of Terry Gilliam, Columbia University Press, ISBN 9780231850384, pp. 145-149

Shouldn't "Sir" be a prefix?

Most other pages I see, such as those of Sir John Major, Sir Alan Lascelles, Sir David Attenborough, Sir Vince Cable, and Sir Laurie Bristow have it as a prefix. The edit claims it was edited "As per the very detailed detailed on the template and MOS talk pages" but does not claim which one. Back to prefix?

Edward Jocob Philip Smith (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look up the MOS talk archives and the infobox talk page - the fact that you failed to do this basic bit of due diligence is telling. Atchom (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a user is going to back up their edit by reference to a discussion elsewhere, the very least they can do is indicate where that discussion is. The onus to is on those wishing to make the edit, and the fact you failed to do this (and have still failed to do this) is very telling. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could have looked up the references I provided. I'm even going to link them here to make it easier for you. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2024 archive and Template talk:Infobox person and numerous examples where this was litigated on article talk pages and consensus was for Sir to be in name such as Talk:Ben Key. This issue has been repeatedly litigated since last year and even before that, as a result of a couple of obsessed editors manually changing thousands of infoboxes without consensus, then using this fait accompli (Wikipedia:Fait accompli for their position. It is disappointing that such an experienced editor as yourself should be unable to look up basic facts relating to the dispute. Atchom (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Atchom This is the first time you have provided anything. It's not my. or anyone's, responsibility to go searching for things you hint at. Especially when you're demanding people find something that simply isn't there. Having looked at the pages you have linked, I see no consensus or style guideline on either choice. So for you to claim that either are to be found on these talk pages is totally misleading. The format used here has existed since Blair was knighted in 2022 (you also changed it back then, before being reverted), so claiming this is part of a nefarious edit campaign across multiple articles also doesn't wash.
So that leaves it as a matter that can be decided on this article alone. Not ideal, it would be good if there was direction given either on the template or MOS. It would prevent a lot of unproductive edit warring on the matter. But there isn't.
Personally, I have no strong feelings about the matter. Although I do not believe that someone changes their name when they accept a knighthood. They just adopt a title that some people may wish to use before their name. It's a title, not a name. No different from Reverend, or Missus, or Professor, or Doctor. People's name don't change when they adopt any of those, so why should Sir be different? With that in mind, I don't see any convincing argument for Sir being in the Name field of the infobox, and not in the honorific prefix field. Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS calls for "Sir" to be bolded with the other components of the name at the first mention. That's a pretty good indicator that for MOS purposes Sir is to be treated as part of the name. I note that the "name" in the infobox is bolded whereas the "prefix" field is not.
In 2022 there was a very persistent editor (who went on a site-wide rampage and unilaterally changed thousands of pages as well as the template documentation) who moved "Sir" to prefix. In the case of some pages, "Sir" had been under "name" for decades.
I believe that the discussions I pinpointed clearly shows that the weight of considered opinion favours Sir as part of the infobox field for name. There was no formal RfC, but clearly the weight of the opinions expressed went to one side.
As to your arguments, they have been addressed in the very long discussions I cited. You haven't addressed the counter-arguments. I'm therefore to be Bold and change it. If you disagree, please feel free to launch a full discussion, flagging the wider community as well. Atchom (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a full discussion, which you are right in the middle of. This article was not part of any "site-wide rampage". You have repeated this edit twice now, you know do not have consensus for it, so claiming it is others' responsibility to "launch discussion" while you again change the article to your preference, is not "being bold", it is edit warring. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For posterity, I record here that Edward Jocob Philip Smith has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Atchom (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge those edit warring over this to stop it and discuss the matter here. I'd also like to ask those quoting a MOS guideline regarding where "Sir" should beto please link to it. I can't find anything that unambiguously addresses infobox placement. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse me of edit warring without evidence. I made two edits over almost two weeks to this page. Edward Jocob Philip Smith has been gatekeeping this page and others and you didn't think it fit to say anything. Atchom (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My evidence is that you have simply repeated the same edit twice, joining in with edits of others that have been reverted, with no attempt to discuss or explain. That is edit warring. Other users have been restoring the page to what it was before, in the light of no consensus for it changing. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are alot of editors who disagree with the forced status quo shows a lack of consensus for having it separated. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 02:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on infobox image

Considering the fact that Gordon Brown and Keir Starmer both have official portraits as their infobox images, I think we should use an image of Tony Blair taken during his premiership. Not doing so would be like using a recent image of John Major for his infobox. So, I'd like to establish a consensus once and for all. IMO, the best choice would be this one. Thoughts? --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before. I'm not a great fan of the current infobox image, and would go for this one which is on Commons, but there needs to be a clear consensus before changing the infobox image. The image on the right isn't brilliant.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit you have changed the infobox image without establishing a talk page consensus. You have also said "Article A has this, so Article B should have it as well" which you have been told before is not a valid argument. You are editing articles about Labour at a frantic pace and without establishing consensus for key edits.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biographies of living persons tend to include recent images of them, and when they die they are changed to an image of them during the height of their fame/importance. I think a more recent image of Blair should be used.
P.S. There has long been a sentiment in the John Major talk page that the image used in his infobox is too grainy, old, and the angle doesn't show his face well enough. Maurnxiao (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both of your points. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox lead image

The image in Blair's infobox should really be an image taken when he was actually in office as Prime Minister. 92.236.118.94 (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common argument, but there is no absolute requirement for this. It is now seventeen years since Blair was Prime Minister, and he isn't dead.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but before people use the 'up to date' argument given his status as a living person, the current image is from 2010, which was 14 years ago in itself. Whilst also being only 3 years after he left office. 92.236.118.94 (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tony_Blair