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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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."[edit]
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)[reply]
Heraldic sculptor Ian G Brennan has updated his website to reveal his model of Blair's crest. [1][2]Robin S. Taylor (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Baz Manning has released photographs of the Dean of Windsor's tables, showing Blair's shield as a Knight of the Garter.[[3]] Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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]
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)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2023[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
@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.
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. Sorry for being a bit of a dick, I've had a really bad day.
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]
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]
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]
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]
^Jolin, Dan (March 2009). "A Film by Heath Ledger and Friends...". Empire. pp. 109–113.
^Randell, Karen (2013). The Cinema of Terry Gilliam, Columbia University Press, ISBN 9780231850384, pp. 145-149