The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Tony 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.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford 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.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour 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.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2007.
This article was reviewed by The Independent on February 12, 2006.
Comments: "It is opinionated and written from an anti-war point of view."
-Note that this peer review referred to something like this version which was indeed POV, but that the POV was soon removed. David For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.
If you look at the discussions above and in the archive, the current infobox image does not have a huge fan club. The problem is lack of consensus for what should replace it.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)17:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
@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.
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.
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
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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]
Latest comment: 4 months ago12 comments4 people in discussion
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?
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
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
Latest comment: 4 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion
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
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
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
_(St_Edwards_Crown).svg)
Not done: The war and various aspects of it are already linked-to in the article.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)