Talk:Tony Blair/Archive 9

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is an archive of past discussions about Tony Blair. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Jewish ancestry of Tony Blair???

Ban evasion by User:HarveyCarter.

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

I came to this article to see why Tony Blair supported all these Middle Eastern wars in Muslim countries (enough to ruin his political career) and could not find an answer. My question: Is Tony Blair ancestrally Jewish??? The reason why I ask is that it says that his grandmother's name on his mother's side is "Lipsett". That is a Jewish name, and in Judaism, if your mother is Jewish, then you are (whether you admit it or not). If Blair's mother's mother was Jewish, that makes Tony Blair Jewish, yes? Is Tony Blair ancestrally Jewish???EricSavage (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

This isn't going very far without reliable sourcing. It also has problems with WP:REDFLAG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

What a strange comment to make, considering that you are commenting on comments that haven't even been made yet. Of course anything has to be reliably sourced - but nobody has commented yet. Why are you so super-sensitive to this subject? Are you Jewish? I think I have caught you. In any event, in the main article it even states, " Tam Dalyell, while Father of the House of Commons, suggested in 2003 that Blair's foreign policy decisions were unduly influenced by a "cabal" of Jewish advisers" - thus this is a perfectly legitimate subject matter to discuss. I would like to know why Blair basically sacrificed his political career on these Middle East wars. I would note that with regards to the Iraq war, it was stated repeatedly in various media (mostly foreign media) that Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and thus we were "attacking the wrong country". Of course, Iraq had the 5th largest standing army in the world and thus Israel benefited enormously from what was called an immoral war. Why did Blair do such a thing? Of course, if he is in fact ancestrally Jewish, then that would answer a lot of things. Remember, even the Father of the House of Commons said that he surrounded himself with a "Jewish cabal". I ask again, are you Jewish? It would explain your super-fast, super-sensitive remark.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EricSavage (talk • contribs) 15:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

"a perfectly legitimate subject matter to discuss" on this talk page is improvements to the article. This includes sourced additions, or discussions about where it might be found. If someone has a reliable source to answer your request, you'll get it. In the mean time, this talk page is not for your personal speculation, theories or interrogation of other editors. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not "speculation" - I am asking what the answer to this is. Ianmacm below has now indicated that it has already been noted before and that what he calls "loony far right" websites have mentioned it. This is news to me. I don't know this subject matter. When I first read that his grandmother on his mother's side was named "Lipsett", I thought that I was onto something new, but apparently I am not. We are making progress. What did major media sites like, say, The Guardian or The Wall Street Journal or major Japanese websites, etc, make of this when it came up? What did their research conclude? Surely they must have looked into this. Instead of spewing personal opinion, why don't you end this discussion by coming up with links to where major news media have looked into this? Again, I don't really know this subject matter - all that happened was that I noticed it and I thought "Ah-ha! THIS could be the cause of Blair's conduct with the wars!" - and so I asked, and then I get your spewing hatred and vidictive. Why don't you contribute to this discussion and end it with proper links? Again, I don't know this subject matter. In the meantime, take your bigotry elsewhere!EricSavage (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

It isn't really the job of other editors to tell you where to find the oddly specific information you're looking for. If you want to find evidence for Tony Blair having Jewish ancestry (for whatever reason), then you'll need a credible source. And because it's been indicated that the only ones that DO do so are "loony far right websites", I doubt that you'll find that many. ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Am I Jewish? No I'm not, and it's the first time that I have ever been asked this on Wikipedia. However, I have come across people pushing the "Tony Blair is Jewish" theory on the basis of the Lipsett name, usually on loony far right websites that would fail Wikipedia sourcing requirements by a mile. This is why WP:REDFLAG is relevant here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Thank you for telling the board that some websites have also noted this. Now please tell us what major news media concluded when they looked into this. Please include links. Again, thank you.EricSavage (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

|}

ExcellentWheatFarmer, you wrote, "it's been indicated that the only ones that DO do so are "loony far right websites"" - actually, the section has only been up 24 hours and that is what has come up. I wonder what could be posted if it was left up for any sort of time. I find it weird that the section has been hidden TWICE now with it up 24 hours or less. I am obvioulsy onto something here. Again, I never knew it had even been looked into any all - I thought I was the first to notice it. So, again I ask, what has the mainstream media reported on Tony Blair's ancestry?, or has the mainstream media ignored it? Thank you.EricSavage (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

"Obviously onto something"? What? Are you aware of how conspiratorial you sound? There are no credible sources or reports on Tony Blair's ancestry from the mainstream media. The way that you're trying to prove that he has Jewish ancestry to support Blair's action in the Middle East, as well as how you're so doggedly attempting to keep this discussion going is a massive WP:REDFLAG.ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to the text of this article: mention of the Pandora Papers. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Wealth of £60 million in 2015 says i newspaper

i newspaper, today Wednesday 29th September 2021, page 6. Report "Firm becomes £160m cash machine for Blair junior" says "The valuation means he is almost certainly wealthier than his former PM father, who had an estimated net worth of £60m in 2015." The report also says "Euan Blair, the son of former prime minister Tony Blair, is worth more than £160m after having secured a huge investment in his education technology company."

An article on the same topic is here: https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/how-euan-blair-tony-blair-son-multiverse-160-million-pounds-b957838.html

There ought to be a Wikipedia article listing the wealth of socialist politicians. See also the Crony-capitalism index, Champagne socialist. 92.24.191.104 (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Saw this in the news this morning. Estimates of wealth like this should be taken with a pinch of salt. Quote from the article "According to reports, the Yale graduate and former Morgan Stanley banker is believed to have amassed a fortune of at least £160 million - more than three times Tony Blair’s reported £44 million." WP:TLDR: it is someone's external estimate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

In the news again: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58780559 I heard somewhere that he is the wealthiest PM of all time. Every famous UK contemporary socialist seems to be a multi-millionaire. 92.24.178.41 (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the article Pandora Papers where it is more on topic. What Blair did here wasn't illegal, but using offshore companies to do business and bypass UK tax laws is a favourite tactic of the very wealthy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

More dirt: https://www.tatler.com/gallery/tony-blair-family-children-euan-kathryn-nicky-leo-multimillion-pound-property-portfolio and https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9169597/The-Blair-rich-project-millions-Tony-Blair-wife-children.html Said he was a socialist, but behaves like an uber capitalist. A big contradiction. 92.24.184.118 (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Tony Blair's knighthood

He is styled Sir Tony Blair.--86.134.136.188 (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:SIR. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2022

This edit request to Tony Blair has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

When it was announced tony blair would receive the queen's honour it sparked a mass petition asking for its removal.. 2A00:23C5:5080:6801:3DF4:131B:A51D:B0FF (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2022 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It's true [1] and there are several petitions on change.org asking for the newly knighted Sir Tony to have the honour rescinded. Whether the article should mention this is debatable. Unlike the UK Parliament petitions website, anything said on change.org carries no weight with parliament. It's little more than a way for people to let off steam online.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

It's receiving news coverage, hence it is notable to mention it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

A more up to date image

I recently changed the infobox image to a better image than the last one, but it is from 2012. Aren’t there any recent images of Blair free to use?--Emily19911991 (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The most recent image on Commons is from 2020 here but it isn't of brilliant quality so I wouldn't choose it. There are many images of Tony Blair on Commons but not all of them would work as an infobox image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

In addition to it not being up-to-date, the infobox image is definitely awkward and strange, Tony looks very angry 😆 Ak-eater06 (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't blame me, I don't like it either. There are threads above where I've said this. However, it has been restored to the infobox on several occasions after it was replaced. There needs to be a better consensus image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I came to this talk page for exactly this reason. I agree, the picture being used is awful. 4Tildes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.143.178 (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Also agree, but just because the picture being used has been restored to the infobox on several occasions after it was replaced does not mean we have to keep it that way. There appears to be a consensus not to use the current photo, so we should have a consensus on which photo to use instead. --79.66.82.129 (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2022

This edit request to Tony Blair has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to change where it states where Tony Blair is ranked amongst British prime ministers, it states that he is ranked average alongside John Major and David Cameron even though he is ranked in a different category above both of them amongst academics and historians (Blair was ranked as the third best post-war prime minister by the University of Leeds in 2021 marginally behind Margaret Thatcher). He is ranked by most academics and scholars as one of the best prime ministers post World War II not as average as shown by the repeated rankings by the University of Leeds made since 2004. Popular opinion polls tend to have a heavy bias towards well known or recent prime ministers e.g., Winston Churchill ranked as the 2nd best prime minister after World War II even though most academics rank his postwar premiership as average. OllieX2000 (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

This is based on Historical rankings of prime ministers of the United Kingdom which is quoted in this article. Personally I take these rankings with a pinch of salt because they are subjective at best. It's true that the University of Leeds rankings have Blair in third place behind Attlee and Thatcher, so maybe the wording of the lead section should be clarified.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Could the wording be phrased differently as a result, he's not regarded as average by experts and is not seen at the same level as either Major or Cameron as shown by academic rankings. OllieX2000 (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, even in the Historical rankings of prime ministers of the United Kingdom article he is rated above average. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"Blair was re-elected for a third term with another landslide in 2005"

Was his win in the 2005 a landslide? His first two were, but by the time of the 2005 election, the Iraq War had happened, which negatively effected both Labour's poll ratings and Blair's approval ratings. This resulted in his party's victory in the 2005 election but with a substantially reduced majority when compared to his landslide victories in 1997 and 2001. While Blair got a majority in the 2005 election, I don't believe it was by enough to be considered a landslide (when David Cameron became Conservative leader after the election, his party polled higher than Labour in every subsequent local election during Blair's remaining years as PM). 2.97.212.181 (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

To state that, “Blair was re-elected in a second landslide…” when referring to parliamentary elections is incorrect. It implies that the U.K. prime minister is elected by the public to that position, when when he or she is not. A better way of stating election results would, in this and similar cases, be, “The Blair-led Labour Party was re-elected in a second landslide…” (and third, etc.). Steveedee (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I see your point, though the question I asked was wondering whether or not Blair's third election victory was a landslide or not. His first two were, but was the 2005 election? --2.97.212.181 (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Remove Labour chairmen from infobox

Chairmen have been removed on the infoboxes for Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak. 2.97.212.181 (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2023

This edit request to Tony Blair has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article erroneously describes Lord Liverpool as being 24 when he became Prime Minister. He was actually 42. Ew100 (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Done: Thanks for pointing this out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Does the lead really need to be so long?

The leads of other UK Prime Ministers, such as Margaret Thatcher and Gordon Brown, are not as lengthy as this one. The lead for US President George W. Bush, whose popularity similarly declined as a result of the Iraq War, is also much shorter than this. The lead here should only include the most important details of Tony Blair's premiership, other aspects of it can be discussed on the article Premiership of Tony Blair. I don't see any reason why Blair alone should have an overly long lead. HighlyLogicalVulcan (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It is still made up of dates. It should be about what he will be remembered for: new labour, iraq war and tuition fees. 2.96.203.176 (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

It has since been shorted and reworded.

Should the 1997 portrait be used as the infobox image

Most, if not all, articles for UK prime ministers use either official portraits during their premierships as the infobox image, or a photo of them as prime minister if an official portrait is unavailable. Why is Blair an exception to this?

This 1997 portrait of Blair would be a better choice for the infobox, as it is an official portrait that was used by the Government. It's fair to say he's best known as a former prime minister rather than a former Special Envoy of the Quartet on the Middle East. The infobox should reflect that, as other UK PM infoboxes do (e.g. John Major's infobox is a photo from his premiership rather than one after he left office). 79.66.89.36 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, too informal, not wearing a jacket. No mention of the portrait being "official" either. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a no from me as well. The lighting in this is yuk, and the 407 × 521 pixels is too small for decent resolution by today's standards.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

In retrospect I can see what the both of you mean. You both make solid points as to why the current photo is a better choice as the infobox picture. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"In 2003, Blair supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq and had the British Armed Forces participate in the Iraq War, claiming that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs); no WMDs were ever found in Iraq."

Can this sentenced be changed to "In 2003, Blair supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq and had the British Armed Forces participate in the Iraq War, claiming that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), which were never found there." 79.66.89.36 (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Should we change the infobox image?

Ak-eater06 (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

User:ianmacm your thoughts on changing the infobox image? Ak-eater06 (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I've said numerous times that the current infobox image in which Blair has a weird fixed stare would not be my personal choice. Other people have also said that they are not fans of this image. My personal choice is this, which is cropped and edited from a 2009 image on Commons and has been used in the past.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

User:ianmacm I find your proposed image awkward as his mouth is wide open. What are your thoughts on my proposed image? Ak-eater06 (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It's ok, but I'm not a great fan of his facial expression in this image either.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I’ve recently came across this fairly recent image of Blair on the Commons and thought it would be a suitable image to have in the lead. @Ianmacm:, @Ak-eater06: – what do you both think? 2A01:4C8:1406:5988:8D8F:EF06:E212:536A (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed image #2 is OK and shows Blair in 2019. Again there is a slight problem with Blair's facial expression but it is better than some that have been suggested.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Re this edit: I'm not sure why Neveselbert always reverts back to Tony Blair 2010 (cropped).jpg because it is by no means the best or most natural image of Blair. The image suggested in this edit is passable and gives a more natural look at Blair in action.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a portrait taken by a professional photographer for the European Commission. It's the closest thing we have to an official portrait. I don't see how it's "unnatural"; his pose is the same as that of Vladimir Putin in his infobox image. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Personally I feel as though a photograph of Blair during his premiership would be best for the article, as the majority of infobox images for UK Prime Ministers (Theresa May, Boris Johnson, etc) are from their premierships. So having Blair's infobox image be a photo from his premiership would make the most sense IMO. The proposed infobox image would work great as it's taken during Blair's premiership and is also used for his sidebar too. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the current image should be changed at all, but if it were to be changed it think it should be the one I've put forward. It's the closest thing we have to an actual official portrait. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I support the first choice. Near all PMs have their official portraits, or those otherwise taken during their premiership, and it makes no sense to have one from 2010. Ditto for US presidents etc., despite more current photos existing for e.g. Jimmy Carter or John Major. JJLiu112 (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense. Blair was still serving as special envoy at the time of the photograph, and this is the closest we have to an official portrait of him in office. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I support the 2002 image, because (1) Blair was Prime Minister and we have precedent for PMs' images being from their premiership (2) the photo was tacitly OK'd by a govt body (held in NARA), assuming America is ~ EU and (3) it's otherwise an image of acceptable quality. JJLiu112 (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The 2002 image isn't a professional portrait (it's cropped from a landscape image), the 2010 image is and it's the highest quality image of Blair that exists on Commons. Also, the precedent is not for images being from the premiership but from when they were last in office, and Blair is unique in having held office after leaving the premiership. Per MOS:LEADIMAGE, Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, criteria which the 2010 image meets as his portrait from serving as special envoy. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Think the image used should be Tony Blair 3.jpg as it appears more updated and is from when he was still special envoy. Also of high quality Fm675 (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Crest reveal

Heraldic sculptor Ian G Brennan has updated his website to reveal his model of Blair's crest. [2] [3] Robin S. Taylor (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Shield reveal

Baz Manning has released photographs of the Dean of Windsor's tables, showing Blair's shield as a Knight of the Garter.[[4]] Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2023

This edit request to Tony Blair has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request to add

under

. 223.25.74.34 (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Not done: The war and various aspects of it are already linked-to in the article.

Come on, give this man a decent picture

The current one shown on top of this article is putting him in an unfavourable light. 2003:DA:C708:FD00:5110:951:3DE4:1F7E (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

How so? It's the EU's portrait of him as special envoy. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

It's the best-quality portrait available of Blair on Commons. The idea that it puts him "in an unfavourable light" is utterly ridiculous. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)