Talk:Peter Mandelson/Archive 1

Possible Vandalism

It says "Sith Lord Mandelson" in the box on the right of the article. On the one hand - I too have no doubt that Mandy is a dark lord of the Sith (intent on building a deatstar and forming a menacing intergalactic empire). However, until we can cite verifiable sources as evidence of this fact, I'm afraid that this would probably be considered vandalism. Hence, I have (regretfully) removed this reference to his allegence with the dark side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.253.59 (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wording

"He worked as a television producer with London Weekend Television crucially alongside John Birt before his appointment as the Labour Party's director of communications in 1985."

What does the word "crucially" mean in this sentence? Adam 11:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Possibly because Birt then tried to supress Parris's leak of Mandelson's sexuality, I imagine. They were well-known to be friends. Not sure, though.

James F. (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Has Mandelson ever said he is gay? If not, he can't be put in categories which assert that he is. This is not only unethical but potentially defamatory. Adam 03:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

As far as I am aware he has admitted it, and it could not be considered defamatory in any case or he would already have sued all british newspapers. Britain's best known gay politician, SqueakBox 04:01, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Can you give a source where he has said it? Adam 04:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Well I can't find anything on him admitting it but that doesn't matter. Everyone thinks he is, which is what is important as an encyclopedia. The way it is trweated is fine, i think, --SqueakBox 04:11, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it matters a great deal. It is not an encyclopaedia's job to "out" people. If he hasn't said it then it's just gossip. Adam 05:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

This Slate profile "The Man Who Invented British Spin, Jan. 29, 2001" seems to imply that Mandelson acknowledged being gay to the writer. It predates the famous outing incident in 2002.

By the time I first met Mandelson, in the run-up to the 1997 campaign, he was no longer a mere media adviser. Although he had few hopes of being prime minister himself—Mandelson is gay, and he thought that probably disqualified him—he clearly believed that high Cabinet office was a possibility.

Like any topic, we should summarize in an NPOV manner the verifiably sourced information. Perhaps we need a category for "closeted LGBT politicians." -Willmcw 08:14, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

An excellent way to get sued, as well as unethical. Adam 08:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone contend that we should only include authorized information in our articles. No wait, I'm wrong - I have heard that argument before, from User:Herschelkrustofsky. Articles such as Lyndon LaRouche, George W. Bush and thousands of others would be considerably shorter if we only permitted facts which had been confirmed by the subjects. And doing so would not improive the accuracy or the NPOV of the encyclopedia. It would be different if Mandelson had denied being gay. -Willmcw 09:04, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

It's not excluding "unauthorised" information, it's simply not putting in a "fact" that by its very nature can only be known if the person concerned makes it known. If there's no source for him saying it, it cannot be stated as fact. Proteus (Talk) 09:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

This must be a joke, surely, Adam? The idea that Mandelson would sue us for noting his homosexuality is laughable - there are several thousand media outlets that it would be significantly more profitable to sue, first. If you're really that concerned, we can state that he has been called a homosexual by dozens of papers and television programmes, give citations, and note that he's never complained, legally or otherwise, about this.

James F. (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

As far as the article, this discussion began with the removal of the category:LGBT politicians. While I think that the evidence of Mandelson's orientation is sufficiently strong and publicly noted that we need to report on the matter in the article, we probably do not need to include him as an LGBT politician since he does not include that as part of his political identity. My comment about having a category for "closeted LGBT politicians" was a joke, but I think that to qualify as an LGBT politican one would have to be "out". Cheers, -Willmcw 09:26, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Several points: I am not of course suggesting that only "authorised" material can go in articles about politicians. But even politicians have personal lives, and have a right to privacy. If it is OK to say that Mandelson is gay, on the basis of hearsay, when we know that he has not chosen to discuss his sexuality in public, and when it is not a matter relevant to his public duties, then why is not OK to reproduce gossip about the sexual practices or proclivities of any politician, or of any other public figure, or of anyone at all - including Wikipedia editors? Secondly, while I agree that Mandelson is apparently not inclined to sue over this, there are certainly politicians and others who are or may be so inclined, and therefore this practice should not be encouraged. Thirdly, I agree that in this case the matter has been so widely commented on that reporting that fact is probably fair enough. But putting him in the "GLBT politicians" category is making a definite statement that he is gay, which I don't think can be justified either ethically or as a matter of evidence. Adam 09:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The Independent on Sunday's Pink List 2005 lists Mandelson as number 3. Permission was asked from all on the list. [1]

That is a good source and I withdraw my objection in this case, although my general points above are still valid. Adam 1 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)

The linked-to url actually quoted the Independent as saying that the asked permission was in many cases witheld - presumably meaning that the list is not 100% voluntary, which is a bit peculiar. However, to be truthful, my sense is that Mr. Mandelson's being in the LGBT politicians list is not 'outing' him in any meaningful sense, and not mentioning it might cause confusion in those unfamiliar with British politics. That said, obviously I'm not for involuntary outing, or the British media's juvenile sense of humour. --Haligonian Lucullus 22:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Early Life

More information on his childhood would be useful. Who were his parents? What school did he attend? Bastie 10:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

He attended Hendon County Grammar School and went to Oxford in 1973 (just checked my St Catherine's College list for 73-74).Bluewave 13:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

His parents are mentioned in the article. His mother was the daughter of Lord and Lady Morrison of Fleet. His father was Anthony Mandelson, known as Tony Mandelson. Tony was NOT Advertising Manager or the Jewish Chronicle newspaper. His father was the Advertisement Sales Director of the Jewish Chronicle. Advertising and Advertisement managers and directors are two totally different things. His father sold advertising space. I know, I worked for him when he proudly announced that his son was going to University. If his father read read about his son's dubious dealing he would turn over in his grave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.37.229.37 (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Link to the same page

I made the words "Reinaldo Avila da Silva" just normal text rather than a link, since it seemed silly to have a link that just redirects to the same page. Rather defeats the point of a link. 81.159.124.90 18:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Mandy

I am very concerned about this homophobic nickname being used in this article at all. [http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/staff/paulb/lgbt/chapter3.doc Please see this document for more detail and a more informed argument than I could manage. I am from Australia and I don't know much about Mandelson but was surprised to see such an entry in an article about him. DarrenRay 11:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is rare for us to include derogatory names used for policitians in their bios, except in list of political puns. Since he doesn't use it it appears just to be a slur used in a political context. I agree that it is not notable nor encyclopedic. -Will Beback 21:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh what rot, it's been reported that he does use it and why homophobic? It's not homophobic at all, it's a contraction of his name Mandelson like Smith's are called Smithy in the UK. White's are called Chalky and all Hitchens' are nicknamed Hitch. What is your problem with this mans sexuality?? Get over it. It's not like he's named Brown and people call him Loretta.

What next, we can't call Michael Jackson "Jacko"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.249.2.158 (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear "Oh what rot". It's been reported he hates the name. It's being used by people who dislike him, who find the nickname hilarious; not by the man himself and not by those who have respect for him. "Mandy" is nothing like "Smithy", at least not in this case. My problem is with homophobic and demeaning approach being acceptable in the mainstream media and by the public. ~ Loretta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.97.49.177 (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If he likes it or not has nothing to do with it, its the short name used for him in the press e.g (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/10/mandelson-holiday-labour-party) and is therefore applicable to the article. On a social level, which you appear to be basing your entire argument, you are wrong it is very much like "Smithy". Last Saturday I was sat in a pub, in the UK, with, amongst others, an Embers, a Buffy, a ‘the Proctol’, a Johno and a Dave all of which are derivatives of their surnames. If you can correctly guess the sex and sexuality of all them I would be impressed. Most social environments in the UK rarely refer to people by anything other than their nickname, however hideous they are (e.g the Prtoctol). Being part of any minority does not grant exemption from this and why should it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. If you have a mate called I dunno, John Samson, and you affectionately call him Sambo... and he points out he dislikes it... and is of a certain colour? Then yes, you'd be not to my liking, and the nickname should either not be on wiki, or should be placed in wiki with the comment that it's very low. ~Loretta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.91.245.31 (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

POV in "European Commission" Section

The European Commission section shows a striking degree of Point of View and original research. While providing very little solid facts on the application process and his eventual appointment, speculates widely on the purely political ramnifications and possible reasons for his appointment, all without any references ofcourse. Basically, it makes his appointment sound like something done purely for the benefit of the UK's ruling Labour party, neglecting to mention his vast experience in the relevant areas and his undeniable suitability for the job. Although I'm sure (like all political appointments) his appointment had some degree of political input, Wikipedia is not the place for presenting such subjective, and unreferenced, political observations.

The paragraphs detailing the 2005 EU-Chinese textile dispute is just laughable. Not only was it obviously written by someone who has virutally no idea of what the actual dispute was about, it makes wild observations about the dispute's impact, incorrectly states why the quota was exceeded and makes unsourced allegations of political interest pushing. All without providing any objective information on the reasons or outcome of the negotiations. Canderra 01:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The section could probably benefit from a re-write. That said, the point bears making that he had been obliged to resign from the government on two occasions. Although not unique in Tony Blair's administrations (David Blunkett), it is something which led to Peter Mandelson's appointment being controversial at the time. Informed Owl (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Informed Owl

I can't find any editing facilities on this page, but it needs to be said that his promotion of Economic Partnership Agreements is heavily controversial especially among the main pressure groups such as Christian Aid and Oxfam; BBC Caribbean cites information that Mandelson may have colonial-style shouted at the representatives from African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries —Preceding unsigned comment added by Left888 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Multi-millionaire

Does anyone have a source for Mandelson's being a multi-millionaire? Even if so, is it really relevant enough to be placed in the first sentence? It's certainly not the reason he is well known and seems out of place. UmbertoM

If he was a multi-millionaire, surely he would not have needed to borrow £373,000 from Geoffrey Robinson. I suggeast this is removed unless there is a source. Bluewave 09:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland criticism

Apparently the Guardian made the first report (March 2007) about Mandelson criticizing Blair's approach to negotiations in Northern Ireland. Then Mandelson appeared on the Today programme with a denial, then the Guardian published the actual interview - is this correct? At first I (and others) had thought that Mandelson had suddenly jumped out of nowhere with an attempt at preemptive career advancement by distancing himself from Blair. How did the story first come about? Does it have relevance to Mandelson's second resignation? I thought it was appropriate to at least make mention of the news story, but was unsure how to expand on it. Hunt the Thimble 06:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Spin doctor

I really wouldnt have thought that a couple of references to jokes against PM - one source which starts "legend has it.." mildly amusing though they are -- if you haven't heard the jokes before - would constitute a "notable incident" , given the scope of the rest of the article. Rrose Selavy (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC).

I agree with that. Political biographies seem particularly prone to damage by edits which add nothing to understanding of the subject. Some of course are by political opponents. JRPG (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Bilderberg

He is also a confirmed Bilderberg member. This should be documented no?

If he is a Bilderberg member then yes I would think that should be mentioned!EoinBach (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

With sources! doktorb _words^deeds 14:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

He attended in 1999, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmregmem/memi19.htm 195.188.138.38 (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Return to Cabinet

As well as waiting for the announcement of his personal return, it also seems likely there'll be some restructuring of the relevant government departments (some of Business is going into a Climate Change post) and the actual title of his post hasn't been announced either (remember the Secretary of State for PENIS debacle?).

Plus his peerage title will take time to determine. Whilst "Baron Mandelson" is probably the most likely, he may opt to be "Baron Mandelson of Somewhere" so can we avoid using anything until there is an announcement on this. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the "of Somewhere" used when there is need for differentiation? -Rrius (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Varies. It appears however that although the palace has agreed to ennoble him, it has yet to occur.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Some peers do deliberately take a "Surname of Place" form even when "Surname" is available because they want to honour a particular place (or just sound grander). Timrollpickering (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting... If a peer is The Baron X of Y it does tend to indicate that the title is being differentiated from an earlier one, The Baron (or other degree) (of) X, which may be a hereditary title. Say Toby Barnard is made a life peer (it could happen!), he may become The Baron Barnard of Oxford, which would seem less grand than being The Baron Barnard, an extant hereditary title created in the seventeenth century. If a life peer wants to be really grand it seems that he picks something like Baron Stratford (Tony Banks) or even (slightly contradicting myself) Baron Dacre of Glanton (Hugh Trevor-Roper).

More pertinently, List of life peerages is showing him as 'Baron Mandelson, of Hendon in the City of London'. Surely it should be 'Baron Mandelson, of Hendon in the London Borough of Barnet'.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

All peerages have a territorial designation. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol — Hendon is nowhere near the City of London! What have previous London territorial designations looked like? If it were Hendon, would it be "of Hendon, ..." "... in the London Borough of Barnet", "... in the county of Greater London", "... in the city of Great London" or "... in Great London"? DBD 14:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The List of life peerages can't be showing anything yet, he's not been made a peer offically....as he? I will try and not mention the little japes and jokes from other forums asking what his partner shall be styled....doktorb _words^deeds 15:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

So glad you didn't mention that. People might have thought you a homophobe.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I do understand that peerages have territorial designations, but (as I'm sure Kittybrewster understands) that is not the same as the title itself including a place name. Hence there is a difference between being Lord Mandelson of Hendon, of Hendon in the London Borough of Barnet, and Lord Mandelson, of Hendon in the London Borough of Barnet.

When the territorial designation is a place in Greater London it seems that the normal practice is to name the borough, as in Baroness Garden of Frognal, of Hampstead in the London Borough of Camden.

I don't understand the comment about Mandelson's partner. As doktorb no doubt knows, husbands, and unmarried partners of either sex, including civil partners, enjoy no style or title as a result of a husband or partner being a peer(ess), baronet(ess), or knight/dame. I'm not sure what japes or jokes one could possibly make about this subject. Perhaps he will explain.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The title has been announced as Baron Mandelson, of Foy in the county of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the county of Durham (Note comma placement) AllsoulsDay (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

So, shouldn't we be moving the page to "Peter Mandelson, Baron Mandelson"? Or are we thinking that it remains as Peter Mandelson due to common usage? DBD 09:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be moved? Maybe if Peter Mandelson needed disambiguation, but it makes perfect sense to keep the article title as is and spell out his full title on the first line. Mark83 (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

He is overwhelmingly known domestically and internationally as "Peter Mandelson" and that hasn't changed just because he now has a peerage. If the common usage changes then we can reconsider, but for now I don't think moving the article is necessary. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I oppose a page move, see Margaret Thatcher, Jeffrey Archer, Sebastian Coe for other examples where we keep to their known names. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sheffield Rally?

This 1997 article from the Independent refers to the Sheffield rally in 1992 as "Mandelson's gig". True? And if so, notable enough? 86.132.139.119 (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct peerage title

As it has now been changed incorrectly a couple of times, I thought perhaps an explanation would be useful. When a new peer receives his Letters Patent confirming his new title, it contains two parts: the title, and a territorial qualification. In Mandelson's case, his title is Baron Mandelson, and his territorial qualification is of Foy in the County of Herefordshire and of Hartlepool in the County of Durham. The latter is only ever used when describing the creation of his peerage, in which case the territorial part comes after a comma. Otherwise it is never used.

"Baron Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool" is simply incorrect, and is only being used by journalists who know no better as they are making a fuss (a) about him using two places (even though it's not so unusual); and (b) about the fact that someone so high profile is becoming a Lord.

Some peers have a placename in their actual title - usually in cases when there is already a peer with the same name. They still have a territorial qualification, giving for example Baron Smith of Kelvin, of Kelvin in the City of Glasgow. It's also possible to have titles that are formed only of placenames, without a surname, for example Baron Bilston, of Bilston in the County of West Midlands (the former MP Dennis Turner).

If anyone's really interested, see List of life peerages which gives a full list of titles and territorial qualifications!

I hope this helps to explain why the article addresses Lord Mandelson in the way that it does, even if it seems contrary to what some newspapers are reporting. JRawle (Talk) 19:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry. I moved the page before seeing this and the note. However, I don't think I was wrong as I found the title through Parliament's website. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been moved back? Already? And under MOS, too. Interesting considering it should at least remain at Peter Mandelson, Baron Mandelson per MOS. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the argument is that he is best known as Peter Mandelson, not Lord Mandelson. It's the same as Margaret Thatcher. I'm not taking a position, but I think that is the argument. -Rrius (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well of course he is remembered and still known as Mandy. He has only been Lord Mandy for a week. Kittybrewster ☎ 06:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It was the wrong title. He is Peter Mandelson, Baron Mandelson, of Foy in the County of Herefordshire and of Hartlepool in the County of Durham. That is not the same as Baron Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool. In full, that would be "Peter Mandelson, Baron Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool, of Foy in the County of Herefordshire and of Hartlepool in the County of Durham". -Rrius (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Remuneration

The word is "(un)remunerated" not "renumerated". I can't edit it; perhaps someone else can. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muresan (talk • contribs) 14:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. JRawle (Talk) 14:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Page name

WP:MOSNAME#British peerage refers to the title at the beginning article, not the article's page name. I have, therefore, reverted the page name back to the common name by which Mandelson is referred. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Good move. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully support the article being at Peter Mandelson. The article name it had been moved to was incorrect anyway, as it should be simply "Peter Mandelson, Baron Mandelson". Isn't it fortunate that no-one edited Peter Mandelson when it was a redirect page? That would have prevented us from moving it back to the rightful page title. JRawle (Talk) 23:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There are 2 articles in "The Times" today 22 Oct. David Robertson refers to Lord Mandelson 6 times. No variations. Ann Treneman refers to Lord Mandelson twice, Lord Mandy twice and Mandy six times. Nobody calls him Peter Mandelson. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

He's certainly been referred to almost exclusively as Lord Mandelson in the last week. However, he is well known to the public as Peter Mandelson from his career to date, unlike some of the less high-profile new ministers in the Lords. I don't actually have particularly strong feelings either way on this one. JRawle (Talk) 22:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If this continues, we should move it. Kittybrewster ☎ 06:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Currently "Peter Mandelson" gets about 1,500,000 hits on Google, "lord mandelson" OR "baron mandelson" 41,600. Google News is tighter - 8,474 to 2,705. We shouldn't let recentism drive a hasty move - lets see how things settle down. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but certainly wait a few months.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Constitutional question

Is it not rather unusual, under the current UK constitutional dispensation, to have a peer (that is an unelected politician) as a Cabinet minister?Muscovite99 (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher's foreign secretary Peter Carrington was a peer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.32.9 (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Rare but not unusual. Leaving aside the Leader in the Lords and Lord Chancellor (pre 2007) there have been quite a few even in recent years. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not really, there have been a number of other examples recently of people being appointed to life peerages specifically so they could take up ministerial positions (not necessarily of cabinet rank) e.g. Digby Jones, Baron Jones of Birmingham and Ara Warkes Darzi, Baron Darzi of Denham. Until recently the Lord Chancellor had to be a peer, but changes have led to some of the former responsibilities of that office going to the Secretary of State for Justice (although so far this has been held alongside the position of Lord Chancellor), and others to the Speaker of the House of Lords. By convention ministers must be accountable to Parliament (not necessarily the Commons), and since there is no mechanism for this outside either being elected as an MP, or being in the House of Lords, if the government wishes to in effect coopt someone, the only option is to appoint them a life peer. David Underdown (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wording

"He worked as a television producer with London Weekend Television crucially alongside John Birt before his appointment as the Labour Party's director of communications in 1985."

What does the word "crucially" mean in this sentence? Adam 11:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Possibly because Birt then tried to supress Parris's leak of Mandelson's sexuality, I imagine. They were well-known to be friends. Not sure, though.

James F. (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Image

Can we consider changing the pic of Lord Mandelson to this: -

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/11/19/1227089082224/Mandelson.jpg

Ha! Francium12 (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Heathrow Protest

What about today's attack where someone shot a load of goo all over Mandy's face? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5856186.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.249.2.158 (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Image of 'sliming'

I agree with mentioning the incident in which Mandelson was covered in custard, but I wonder if the incident is significant enough to warrant the inclusion of a photo of it? Fences and windows (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Mandy"

Removed from the lede:

He is also referred to by the nickname "Mandy" by much of the British news media.

The source given doesn't support that. It is a single source that uses "Mandy" only in the headline. Need better sourcing to back up this sort of statement. (There's also the issue of whether the name is linked to his homosexuality.) Disembrangler (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Bilderberg Group

Regarding this edit from User:Rebroad The cite is from 2004, five years old and does not support the comment, I was wondering where the idea for the edit came from?Mandelson is a member of the Bilderberg Group,, as is also his corresponding shadow business secrerary, Kenneth Clarke.

(Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

I've removed it as well, since the source does not prove any "membership", merely that he attended a conference. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There are more recent references, should the age of the citation matter. I suggest:

1. The Times (London), May 14, 2009, "The illuminati meet in secret - and here's their address; This year's gathering of the powerful Bilderberg Group provides fuel for conspiracy theorists",
2. The Guardian (London), October 25, 2008, "Saturday: Comment & Debate: Even a Bullingdon baronet can struggle in the rarefied air above democracy: Osborne's Corfugate error was to break the club rules of the powerful rich who, sweetly, let political types appear important"

as two more recent excellent sources. As these articles make clear, there is no published membership, being invited to meetings of the Bilderberg Group makes you part of it. Being so widely discussed in major publications makes this information entirely credible for this Wikipedia page and in compliance with WP:BLP. I would consider continued repeated deletions of the published fact that Mandelson attends these meetings censorship and the current edit history is falling foul of wp:3RR (I note that other users have raised alerts) so please avoid reverting and discuss here first in order to reach suitable wording that fits the sources.—Teahot (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Proof that attending a conference makes you a member? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify my point, the fact that Mandelson has been invited to, and taken part in, conferences of the Bilderberg Group is not contested. I make no claim he is a member as there is no published official membership then nobody can make any claims as to anybody being a member. As the fact that Mandelson takes part in these conferences of the Bilderberg Group is well published, then is there any reason why that specific fact not be on this Wikipedia page?—Teahot (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Other than the undue weight involved, where the mention of supposed membership is an attempt to brush him with cynical conspiracy theories? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So you would have no problem if the wording were changed so that only his attendance of the meetings as supported by the sources were mentioned? Apart from that, I have not mentioned any conspiracy and have already agreed that I have found no reliable source that states he is a member, I am only concerned that the facts are included on this page and are not subject to any form of censorship.—Teahot (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you read WP:WEIGHT? Why does his having attended Bilderberg meetings, true or not, have any bearing on his biography? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did and I am not an inexperienced editor. You will note that I have not edited the page but have picked up on the effective edit war here of other editors in order to help reach a better consensus. The fact that Mandelson has been invited to several Bilderberg Group meetings is not a "minority viewpoint". A fact cannot be considered a "conspiracy theory". I am suggesting that this fact be added to the page and I fail to see how you can interpret such a fact as falling foul of wp:weight when it has reliable standard sources such as the Times and Guardian newspapers as well as being discussed in several published books. In terms of judging if it has any bearing on his biography I would have thought that going to the Bilderberg conference and addressing influential people such as the World Bank President, billionaire David Rockefeller and Greek Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis seems entirely relevant to his biography and obvious censorship if it were to be omitted. I am asking if you could take the time to suggest some factual wording that you would consider non-controversial rather than just deleting a well sourced fact.—Teahot (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

the cited evidence leading to the 3RR related to 1999 and the contributor made no effort to source better material, despite being requested on his talk page - see User talk:Rebroad. If he had wanted he could have used Bilderberg Group which references Mandelson fairly. leaky_caldron (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

With regard to better and more recent sources, as well as the two newspaper sources above, the books "Babylon and beyond" ISBN 9780745323909 and "Them" ISBN 9780743227070 specifically discuss Mandelson taking part in the Bilderberg Group as well as these other recent newspaper articles: "The awarding of the peace prize to a Bilderberger" Sunday Tribune (Ireland), October 12, 2008 and The Evening Standard (London) January 21, 2009 "Ken's friendly fire for Mandy", the latter of which explicitly states that Ken Clarke and Mandelson "have attended Bilderberg together". A general summary of this year's conference was also given in the Wall Street Journal, "The Elite Gather in Greece for a Not-So-Secret Meeting", 18 May 2009. Unfortunately the Wikipage you refer to, Bilderberg Group, actually produces only one citation for Mandelson's participation which is the same reference to the House of Commons register of interests that User:Rebroad originally referenced (via the BBC site) and that you objected to.—Teahot (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've listed this at WP:BLPN. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the notice in a neutral way. With better citations identified, I look forward to a consensus on wording.—Teahot (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is irrelevant gossip and if he went to a meeting, what is the point in adding that? why?..what happened at the meeting? where was the meeting at? who else was there and what relevant things were discussed? Adding it is pointy and undue weight, politicians go to thousands of meeting, are we to list them all here.. .is it some kind of conspiracy story, like the secret messages on a dollar bill(Off2riorob (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC))

You are free to think what you like, The Times and The Guardian newspapers do not find it irrelevant. The 2008 official press release described the meeting that year as covering "a nuclear free world, cyber terrorism, Africa, Russia, finance, protectionism, US-EU relations, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Islam and Iran", see [2]. Before you force your view on everyone else, I strongly suggest you take some time to check the sources or at least first read the wikipedia page devoted to the subject before finding reasons to dismiss the inclusion of the fact of his participation in this conference; or do you really expect me to cut & paste all that information here in order to counter your view that it is irrelevant, gossip or a mysterious conspiracy story when your viewpoint does not seem based on any reliable sources?

Mandelson may well attend thousands of meetings in a year but very few meetings would be with so many influential figures at the same time or be held in private. Again I state that I support including the fact that Mandelson has repeatedly taken part in this influential conference as it is a well published fact of interest to the press. I am not supporting any conspiracy theory just the inclusion of this simple fact on his biographical page.

Attendees of the 2009 conference included (from an official press release):

2009 Attendee list (partial)

Dutch Queen Beatrix
Queen Sofia of Spain
Prince Constantijn Belgian Prince
Philip Ntavinion Etienne, Belgium
Étienne, Viscount Davignon Belgium
Joseph Ackerman, Germany
Keith B. Alexander, United States (NSA)
Roger Altman, United States
Georgios A. Arapoglou, Greece (National Bank of Greece governor)
Ali Babacan , Turkey (Deputy Prime Minister responsible for economy)
Francisco Pinto Balsemão, Portugal
Nicholas Bavarez, France
Franco Bernabè, Italy (Telecom Italia)
Xavier Bertrand, France
Carl Bildt, Sweden (Secretary)
January Bgiorklount, Norway
Christoph Blocher, Switzerland
Ana Patricia Botin, Spain, president of Banco Banesto
Henri de Castries, France
Juan-Luis Cebrian, Spain Grupo PRISA
W. Edmund Clark, Canada, CEO TD Bank Financial Group
Kenneth Clarke, Great Britain (MP, Shadow Business Secretary)
Luc Cohen, Belgium
George David, Greece
Richard Dearlove, Great Britain
Mario Draghi, Italy (Italia VANCA d)
Eldrup Anders, Denmark President, DONG A/S
John Elkann, Italy (Fiat SRA)
Thomas Enders, Germany (Airbus SAS)
Jose Entrekanales, Spain
Niall Ferguson, United States (Harvard University)
Timothy Gaitner, United States (Minister of Finance)
Donald Graham, United States (Washington Post Company)
Victor Chalmperstant, Netherlands (Leiden University)
Ernst hirsh Ballin, Netherlands
Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. (Obama’s special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan)
Jaap De Hoop Scheffer, Netherlands (CC NATO)
James Jones, the U.S. (National Security Advisor to the White House)
Vernon Jordan, United States
Robert Keigkan, United States
Girki Katainen, Finland
John Kerr - Britain (Royal Dutch Shell)
Mustafa Koç, Turkey (Group Koç)
Roland GT, Germany
Sami Cohen, Turkey (Journalist)
Henry Kissinger, United States
Marie Jose Kravis, United States (Hudson Institute)
Neelie Kroes, the Netherlands (European Commissioner for Competition)
Odysseas Kyriakopoulos, Greece (Group S & B)
Manuela Ferreira Leite, Portugal (PSD)
Bernardino León Gross, Spain
Jessica Matthews, United States (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace)
Philippe Maystadt (European Investment Bank)
Frank McKenna, Canada (TD Bank Financial Group)
John Micklethwait, Great Britain (journalists, The Economist)
Montbrial, Thierry de - France President of French Institute for International Relations
Mario Monti, Italy (University Louitzi Bokoni)
Miguel Angel Moratinos, Spain (Minister of Foreign Affairs)
Craig Mundie, U.S. (Microsoft)
Egil Myklebust, Norway Chairman of Board of Directors, SAS
Nass, Mathias A, Germany, Die Zeit
Frederic Oudea, France (Societe Generale)
Cem Ozdemir, Germany (Green Party)
Padoa-Schioppa, Tommaso, Italy Former Minister of Finance, President, Notre Europe
Papalexopoulos Dimitris, Greece (CEO, Titan Cement Co. S.A.)
Richard Perle, United States (American Enterprise Institute)
David Petreous, United States (head of the Central Administration of the U.S. Armed Forces)
Pinho, Manuel, Minister of Economy of Portugal
Robert S. Pritchard, Canada (Totstar Corporation)
Romano Prodi, Italy (former Italian Prime Minister)
Heather M. Reisman, Canada (Indigo Books & Music Inc.).
Eivint Reitan, Norway
Michael Rintzier, Czech Republic
David Rockefeller, U.S.
Dennis Ross, United States
Rubin, Barnett R., United States Director of Studies and Senior Fellow, Center for International Cooperation, New York University
J?rgen E. Schrempp, Germany, CEO DaimlerChrysler
Pedro Solbes Mira, Spain (Ministry of Finance)
Lawrence Summers, United States, Director of the National Economic Council
Peter Sutherland, Ireland, Chairman, BP plc and Chairman, Goldman Sachs International
Martin Taylor, UK Chairman Syngenta AG
Peter Thiel, USA, Clarium Capital Management LCC, PayPal co-founder, Board of Directors, Facebook
Matti Taneli Vanhanen, Finland, (Prime Minister)
Daniel L. Vasella, Switzerland Novartis AG
Jeroen van der Veer, Netherlands
Guy Verhofstadt, Belgium (ex-Prime Minister)
Paul Volcker, U.S. - Chair of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board
Jacob Wallenberg, (Sweden) Investor AB
Marcus Wallenberg, Sweden
Nout Wellink, Chairman of De Nederlandsche Bank (Netherlands); Board of Directors, the Bank of International Settlements
Hans Wijers, Netherlands CEO AkzoNobel
Martin Wolf, Great Britain (Financial Times Journalist)
James Wolfensohn, United States (the former World Bank President)
Paul Wolfowitz, United States
Fareed Zakaria, United States (Analyst Journalist, Newsweek)
Robert Zoellick, United States (President World Bank)
Dora Bakoyannis, Greece (Minister of Foreign Affairs)
Anna Diamantopoulou, Greece (PASOK MP)
Yannis Papathanasiou, Greece (Minister of Finance)
George Alogoskoufis, Greece (former Minister)
George A. David, Greece (businessman, president of Coca-Cola 3E)

A version of this list is available at List of Bilderberg participants

—Teahot (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That link ..buisnesswire looks more like an advertising blog than a good cite. Have you got a strong cite for whatever you want to add? Or even better Mandelson perhaps commenting on him and this Bilderberg? What actually is the story? That he went to a meeting? I still don't get the value of the addition. Please don't bother copy and pasting anything, I will look at the sources and see what there is of value. Thanks, yesterday you said that you were just passing by and now you seen slightly obsessed? (Off2riorob (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

Why is it always the telegraph and the guardian? Once or twice does not equal..repeatedly, also, most meetings are held in private. Could I have a look at what you want to add and the cite?(Off2riorob (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

I have to agree with Off2riorob that the repeated attempts to link Mandelson with the Bilderberg Group is part of the conspiracy theory that the Group is some evil secret society whose aim is to take over the world. And therefore, by definition, Mandelson must be evil, as well. The links don't say that, all they have to do is link to the Bilderberg Group article, which says it for them. The Times and The Guardian newspapers do not find it irrelevant.. So what? This doesn't address the undue weight problem. What is it about his having attended a meeting or even multiple meetings say about him that you don't really want to say? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop ascribing motivations to me that are not supported by what I have added here. I find such claims offensive when I am only attempting to reach a reasonable consensus and have not even edited the page in advance of reaching such a consensus. I have provided 4 reliable newspaper sources and 2 book references above and have repeatedly stated that I merely want to add the fact that he attends these influential international conferences. I have made absolutely no statements with regard to any conspiracy theory and in fact have stated the exact opposite as the reason for adding the facts rather than any analysis.—Teahot (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Methinks one does protest slightly too much. There you go again adding the word 'influencial' to spice it up, could you tell me one thing that this organisation has infuenced? (Off2riorob (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

Why don't you check the sources before making assumptions and personal attacks here? For the word 'influence' I would cite the BBC article [3] where Will Hutton (writer and Governor of the London School of Economics, who has never been accused of being a crackpot conspiracy theorist) is directly quoted with regard to the Bilderberg Conference as saying "On every issue that might influence your business you will hear at first-hand the people who are actually making those decisions and you will play a part in helping them to make those decisions and formulating the common sense." Sadly, if you are going to pick at every word I use as evidence that I have some sort of secret agenda, there is little point in wasting any further time trying to reach a genuine consensus. I suggest you consider the guidance of wp:ownership before making further criticisms and I shall take on board the guidance of wp:troll; tempting though it is to pursue what should be a simple case for adding a fact to an article.—Teahot (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You wouuld have to start a conspiracy theory to find a personal attack here. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

• Any editor who wants to suppress this information is part of the conspiracy, and probably a twelve-foot lizard. I'm surprised that anyone considers it undue weight to mention that Mandelson attended Bilberberg meetings. The meetings are influential and they are controversial, even aside from Illuminati conspiracy theories. See e.g. [4]. Fences&Windows 23:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

All the feedback on WP:BLPN#Peter Mandelson (I count three third party opinions given) has been positive for inclusion so far. The current text on the page does not seem to have caused any further controversy either ("In 1999 and 2009, Mandelson was an invited guest of the Bilderberg Group and attended the annual conferences."). Does this mean a positive consensus for inclusion has formed?—Teahot (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If we just say he attended a or some meetings, ok. Adding 'secretive' or 'controversial' or 'member', no. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note, a related RfC is ongoing at Talk:Jon Corzine#RFC Bilderberg Group participation, this may form the body of a more general consensus of how best to handle inclusion of Bilderberg information on BLPs (while avoiding poorly sourced material).—Teahot (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Accent?

With Harriet Harman vowing this week (2009 July) to insist more individuals from the 'regions' are appointed to important positions in Government, what 'region' of the UK is Peter actually from? I've tried to ascertain this from his accent, but cannot - also, his accent and phraseology appear to have changed since his early days in politics - he now sounds appallingly similar to Baroness Thatcher in 'we are a grandmother ' mode. I wonder if he has had some form of 'white matter strokes', which can change a persons accent completely - like they did with Margaret Thatcher and for that matter, Lord Sebastian Coe (who appears to have had some too since accepting a Peerage). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.78.65 (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Jobs bit

Why for the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills part does it say "Position established" and the Business, Reform etc part succeeded by "Himself..." et al? Should there not be some consistency on this matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.62.17 (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

that is how the editors have discussed and come to a consensus about the style that they are going to repeat on all the political articles. Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the way ministerial posts change is a real dog's breakfast. Rather than having lots of little portfolios with ministers holding several, or having long term continuity of departments, reshuffles regularly see responsibilities and titles shunted around, causing departments to be renamed, replaced and merged. Often the changes come with a new minister but in this case Mandelson's went from being in charge of the Department of "Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform" to the Department of "Business, Innovation and Skills", a merger with the Department of "Innovation, Universities and Skills" and portfolio. Strictly Mandy is only half his own predecessor and we should also list John Denham as the other half. So it makes it easier to have the two posts separately rather than implying he has had all that's covered by the BIS portfolio since last October.

(IIRC technically in law the "Secretary of State" is predominantly still a single position that happens to have multiple holders, with most legislation just referring to "the Secretary of State" and the powers wielded by the relevant one no matter what the title - though as always with these things there are some individual exceptions. So there isn't a hard and fast set of definitions.) Timrollpickering (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm having some trouble finding this consensus - anybody care to link me? ninety:one 23:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the consensus emerged in the edit summaries, so you would have to go back to early June in the article's history page. In any event, it is a tenuous consensus because the situation does not fit the template well. If you (or anyone else) has a better suggestion, I'm sure everyone is willing to hear it out. -Rrius (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Internet Copyright Violations

Added another source as implied needed by David Underdown "not convinced we really need this section at all, based on only one source". Seem to be many sources. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

There are many sources for this now, and its clear that he was persuaded by freinds in high places - who are not british. This continues the theme that Mandelson is for sale in the eyes of many british people. It is defiantly something of importance. Why is the page locked - it can be put in a netural perspective but it needs to be mentioned.

If you have money, you can persuade Mandelson. Thats the bottom line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.203.214 (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have adding a 3RR warning to the above user's talk page due to applying the same edit 3 times in 24 hours diff. I have not reversed this last edit as I have done this twice already (I undid my last reversion after I realised it was the third time).—Ash (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

it was not the same edit, did you read it? - it is written completely neutral and important to have as a recent mandelson. He went away on holiday, paid for by the Rothschiled - and then denied that there was anything discussed about the media when there was media people present. then, he suddenly deciced that he needs to jump on a bandwagon and seems to be happy being persuaded by non british.

Which bit is non important to the honesty and integrity of the UK people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.203.214 (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the title for this section was better as "Internet Copyright Violations". The content seems to me important and interesting (Msrasnw (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Perhaps it will be and I see that there is to be a policy announcement in a couple of weeks, when they announce it we can add it then, right now, as yet it is a bit speculative.I have removed it and will happily be available for the rest of the day to discuss it here. Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The sources are all pretty weak really, for all those who say Mandleson has been persuaded, try this Guardian article, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/18/peter-mandelson-political-briefing David Underdown (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The sources seem to me fine - and the whole idea of the super rich getting special access to Labour ministers to talk about who knows what seems to me highly problematic and something our entry needs to mention. The tone obviously needs to be neutral. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Saucy, speculative opinion is unworthy of entry, later in a couple of weeks the policy is to be announced and we can add something then. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for opinionated tittle tattle, which is what this is. Off2riorob (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Please do not edit the comments of others unless they are in violation of WP:TALKNO and then follow the guidance of WP:Prune if necessary.—Ash (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it looked unaceptable to me, this is not a vehicle for users opinions, spouting uncited stuff that is derogatory to a living person and is uncited should be removed. However thanks for the links and I will have a look later. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

David Geffen is one of the most important figures in the U.S. film and music business worth around £3billion. In 2005 Mandelson stated "We have to make the case that we can marry globalisation with social justice" (Guardian Newspaper) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.203.214 (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I restored the text with an edit summary attributing the dispute solely to Off2riorob, but I was wrong. I will take it back down if someone wants, but I have made it more neutral. -Rrius (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The government has today unexpectedly revived plans for laws to disconnect persistent illegal filesharers, in a move to delight the entertainment industry and anger ISPs. The unscheduled changes to the Digital Britain consultation also envisage a more powerful, direct role for Lord Mandelson. The government said it would also significantly speed up the introduction of sanctions because the original schedule - which may not have seen a regime come into force until 2012 - "might be too long to wait given the pressure put on the creative industries by piracy".

However, Will Page, the Chief Economist for PRS_for_Music, the UK-based royalty collecting group recently published a study concluding total music industry revenues are up *annually* ~4.7% since 2007, pointing out that P2P actually increases music consumption...193.62.203.214 (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum. If your contribution is supposed to relate to the content of the article, please explain. Otherwise, this is not a place to discuss your general opinions of Mandelson or his anti-piracy policies. -Rrius (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There is far, far too much spin and FUD on this especially for simple lay people who don't understand this industry. There are statements, valid to the controversy that Mandelson has/is being influenced by big money and that laws in the UK are perhaps being bought. Not everything being said is truth and is really what this particular part of the main article is about (it could have been another issue other than internet media). This talk page is about how to put this in a neutral and objective tense - based on facts, and - why not a little satire in the discussions as he is afterall an English politician.193.62.203.214 (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the controversy should be addressed in the article, and I have written what I think is a neutral version of it. Your previous contribution, though, seemed to address the underlying issue of the Government and file sharing rather than the allegation that Mandelson's trip to Corfu changed Government policy. I'm not sure what that has to do with satire or anything else you said in your most recent contribution, but that response didn't make a whole lot of sense, anyway. Instead of making odd and pointless contributions like your earlier one, why don't you look at the article, where treatment of the controversy has been restored and amended. If you are fine with that version, then the discussion is over. If you do not like it, let's discuss it. Summarising news stories without explaining what it has to do with the discussion, though, serves no purpose. -Rrius (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Young Communist League on BBC Profile

"But he rebelled and joined the Young Communist League after Labour supported the United States' intervention in Vietnam. His rapid return from the far left began when he won a place at St Catherine's College, Oxford." Ref - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7650195.stm Shouldn't this be mentioned in our article? (Msrasnw (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

This looks good if you want to add it, I might have taken it out yesterday but it looks well cited now. Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-added as this has a rock-solid ref Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of lying

I provided credible sources reporting the allegations of well respected opposition spokespeople. Contrary to what Off2riorob seems to think, it is highly unusual for opposition politicians to accuse each other of lying: it is considered a breach of protocol when done inside the House (and also according to some even outside). So such allegations are never made lightly and the ones about Mandelson should be taken seriously, not dismissed as tittle-tattle. Vince Cable is not a firebrand, he is respected as a careful and articulate spokesman.

It would be an incomplete biography of Peter Mandelson were no mention to be made of his considerable reputation for lying. Anyone's reputation is an important fact about them, still more so when the person's vocation is dedicated to managing reputations.

As for whether Mandelson is in fact a liar (aside from his reputation i.e. whether it would be fair to include within his biography), it was established in a court of law that he lied to his building society about a mortgage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philmillhaven (talk • contribs) 11:09, 3 September 2009 92.239.225.87 (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

They do it all the time, whoever says it, it is undue weight and opinionated slander, and adds nothing but unsupported accusations to the article, adding these liar liar accusations is childish, mandelson is a living person and i'm sure we can find a lot more slanderous name calling about him, esay, just not really very biograpical is it? or not very beneficial to the article is it. Your comment that mandelson has a considerable reputation for lying is a reflection of your personal opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You may think that it's childish to accuse a senior politician of lying and you think politicians do it all the time. But there are clearly many people who do think this is important and noteworthy, namely the spokespeople who say it and the media that reports it. As for your suggestion that it is unsupported, I refer you again to the court case in which he was proven to be a liar in a court of law.

Re your argument that the allegations are not biographical, I provided a good reason for their inclusion when I argued that Mandelson's whole career has been focused on carefully managing reputations (as a PR guy and then as a spin doctor). The reputations of public figures are always important, but all the more so in Mandelson's case.Philmillhaven (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Off2riorob about this. The first two provide virtually no context. If he was accused of lying about the war, that should be discussed in a section about Mandelson and Iraq, and the substance of what the lie was and how he is supposed to have known that what he was saying was false. If his supposed lie to Kavanaugh or the building society is noteworthy, it should be discussed in full. The Vince Cable thing isn't even an accusation he lied. Finally, if there is anything to the Hinduja brothers thing, it should be in the existing section, again stating how he is supposed to have lied. -Rrius (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Speculation by opinionated parties

This kind of thing does not really warrant inclusion in the article, the official digital britain official policy release was not even from an office that mandelson is attached to, his involvment and the coatrack corfu holiday stuff is pure speculation and has no place here at all. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A newspaper had suggested that someone who that could not be named but who is very in the know about these things claimed that black was whilte. this was denied be all the whites. Off2riorob (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Multiple news outlets, cumulatively citing multiple sources suggesting his doings in Corfu may have influenced policy. Digital Britain was, nominally, in his department, and the article says right out he had no interest in it until after Corfu. It is sourced, notable, and worthy of inclusion. The text is clear in saying that this is something that some Whitehall types allege happened, not certain fact. We do not exclude information just because it reflects poorly on the subject or might offend them, which from your contributions elsewhere seems to be how you think biographical articles should work. -Rrius (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is worthless press speculation, and adds nothing of value to the article at all, except for its amusing factor in that it makes me laugh to read it. I am more than happy to disagree with you about its inclusion. Off2riorob (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Release of al-Megrahi

Would Off2riorob kindly explain why he disputes the following: Mandelson's spokesman told the FT that the business secretary and Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, widely seen as the Libyan leader's most likely successor, spoke briefly a fortnight ago during their stay at the Greek property of the Rothschild family and confirmed that they did discuss Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/17/mandelson-gaddafi-lockerbie-corfuPhilmillhaven (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The most recent version of this text reads and an indictment rather than a neutral account, using words like "implicated" and "admitted". Until that is dealt with, it is not even worth considering whether this is noteworthy. As written, there is vague innuendo that his meeting somehow influenced policy without showing any involvement in that policy, let alone anyone claiming a connection between the two. -Rrius (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there is nothing at all linking those things, it is press speculation used as an attempt to throw mud and see if they can get some to stick. Off2riorob (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't really press speculation, either. The Daily Mail piece is an opinion piece that is worse than speculation; it's irresponsible drivel. The Guardian piece doesn't speculate at all: it says that other news outlets report Mandelson met with Gaddafi's son weeks before the decision to release the prisoner, that Mandelson denies any connection, and that Joe Conservative MP calls it a remarkable coincidence. Ignoring the Mail piece, which reads more like the ravings of an idiot, it really isn't speculation or an allegation. It is reporting a fact and saying Mandelson states it doesn't relate to another fact. Speculation would be saying, "Fact A caused Fact B", which they do not do. Even the Mail idiot doesn't seem to go that far. He says, "Hmm, isn't Fact A interesting," and, "We don't know Mandelson had anything to do with Fact B, but where there's a pie, usually Mandelson is there with a finger in it." Even that is not speculation. It is clumsy innuendo. -Rrius (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Mandelson has become all encompassing, with all fingers in all pies, so to speak. Two weeks ago mandy met gadaffis son and they talked (briefly) about magrahi..is that stand alone fact really worthy of inclusion? Any more than that is speculation..and by association of this chat he must have done this and that? When it is written in a neutral way you realise that it is worthless (imo)Off2riorob (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have warned Rob, who is one revert away from a 3rr violation. That is not a license for you to revert him again, Phil, see WP:3RR ("Note that any administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring ... whether or not 3RR has been breached"). Both of you: Please try to discuss and reach consensus.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User Simon Dodd,please stop following me round arttempting to start trouble with me. Off2riorob (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Internet copyright policy

This is pure speculation and basically a report of biased sources, it only takes away from the article and add nothing but speculation and opinionated negativity. Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not speculation. It is a fact that the Times and the Independent have written news stories (not opinion pieces) on this. Explain where you see speculation rather than reportage. -Rrius (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, where is the biased source? -Rrius (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Have a read of it.......where are the facts, the statements? There aren't any.... it is speculation and worthless. Off2riorob (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not speculation. I don't think you know what that means. It is a fact that the Independent reported the fact that Whitehall sources claim it is a fact that Mandelson was influenced by Geffen and his ilk. It is a fact that the Times backs that up with its reporting of the fact that their sources claim it is a fact that Mandelson only took an interest in Digital Britain after Corfu. There is no speculation at all. -Rrius (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, have one more read and see if it reads like a bunch of facts.......no it doesn't. Yes as you say it is a fact that this speculation was printed in a paper and a fact that the paper claimed to have sources who they refused to name...la la land...this is not the correct place to publish all the press speculation about a top political figure. (refered to as facts by you, once in print all manner of lies suddenly become fact) Have another read and tell me, it reads very factual? Sorry its rubbish. Off2riorob (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

First, don't misquote me. I never said "this speculation" anything. I don't think it is speculation. To your main point, if you don't believe the papers when they say they have a source, it is not worth talking to you or considering your views on the topic. The news reports relied on across Wikipedia and the civilized world rely on news accounts with anonymous sources. I have read your views on journalism during our discussion on Harriet Harman, and frankly, that you hold them means you should stick to articles that do not concern current events. -Rrius (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I was para phrasing not misquoting, I like current events, my simple view of the press is that they make things up and elaborate to sell papers, that is not such an extreme point of view,is it?

It is speculative rubbish, I prefer statements from people and stronger citation like that, I feel we are not here to link to all sorts of tabloid journalism. Off2riorob (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your view that they make things up is extreme. Most reasonable people take what the press says with a bit of skepticism and, as a result, think critically about what they are reading. To simply decide it is all crap is certainly extreme. As for the speculation thing. You are once again showing an inability deal with what has been put before you logically. Your definition of speculation is silly. That something does not meet your absurdly high standards does not make it speculation. It also doesn't make it tabloid journalism. To point to the Times (or the Guardian as you have done in the past) as tabloid journalism is just goofy. You may like current events, but if you cannot adopt a mainstream view of journalism, you will never be an effective editor at articles that use news sources. Instead, you will continue to experience the frustration you have felt and find your self in edit wars. -Rrius (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well thank you for that. I am not frustrated, I can go back to look at this article and see how much more encyclopediac and neutral it is since my first edit to this article, I get comfort in that, and there is a lot of partisan editing in politics here and so , disagrements is actually par for the course, and I realise you are still not exactly my friend after our debate on the other article (Harperson) but at least that is for me all in the past. regards. Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I am not fixed, I am flexible and I am learning all the time. Off2riorob (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to give you the impression that I don't like you. The fact that you talk across someone rather than addressing their points is maddening, but that I don't have an opinion of your overall character. I do worry that you will continue to butt heads with people to no purpose if you continue that way of arguing and persist in trying to enforce editorial decisions based on your unrealistic views on media sources. I'm glad you get satisfaction from editing here, and I did not mean to imply you always feel frustrated. What I was trying to say, and I was intentionally oblique about it, is that you have clearly had some frustrating experiences here, and those will continue if you try to excise everything that comes from a news source if it quotes an anonymous source, is more negative toward the article subject than you like, or has public comments appended to a web story, you will continue to find yourself in edit wars and be blocked. -Rrius (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, your tone is starting to feel threatening, and it is a bit much when you attack my personality. Please stop. I also notice you are weighting in a every opportunity to attack me, it is unnecessary, have I attacked you? no, I would appreciate if you could back off a bit I will happily leave this article to stop our connection. Off2riorob (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in there was intended to be the least bit threatening, and I'm sorry if it was. It was merely the same advice as above based on your idiosyncrasies. As for whether you have personally attacked me, not in this conversation, but yes. Several times, actually. -Rrius (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversial

Peter Mandelson is a controversial politician and this fact should be included in the lede. The BBC profile on him said he is “Always a controversial figure”. And the Independent described him as a “relentlessly controversial politician” . Not only is he controversial by any objective reading of his biography (resigning twice and involved in a number of controversies), but he doesn't even deny that he was controversial in the past, as relayed in this recent interview with the Guardian:

"I think 10 years ago, and also 15 years ago, I was a very hard-nosed, uncompromising figure prepared to take down anything or anyone who stood in the way...I accepted too readily that [being liked] was a luxury that wasn't open to me. I had to be the hard man – and sometimes the hit man." Philmillhaven (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. Make your case that "controversial" summarises the article bearing in mind that any prominent politician is going to be considered fairly controversial. -Rrius (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The following refer exclusively to content currently in this article:

1. Two resignations - self-evidently controversial.
2. Under the section entitled Personal Life, Mandelson's homosexuality was controversial, as evidenced by the fact the BBC "blocked any mention of his private life on the BBC".
3. In the section on the European Commission "During the summer of 2008, Mandelson had a widely publicised disagreement with Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of France." Princeton's online dictionary defines controversy as "a dispute where there is strong disagreement". That would certainly describe the exchange between Sarkozy and Mandelson.
4. Mandelson's return to UK politics in October 2008 was "controversial".
5. Under the section Recent Controversies Mandelson "accused The Guardian of misrepresentation of the facts, and accused them of taking his comments out of context" (see Princeton definition above). The same section also describes four controversies (with others currently under discussion).Philmillhaven (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously?

1. Perhaps the resignations were under controversial circumstances, but resigning is not per se controversial.
2. That is not remotely controversial now and does not justify summarising his life and career as controversial.
3. Having a disagreement does not make either of the participants controversial.
4. His return being controversial does not make him controversial.
5. Mandelson's disagreeing with the Guardian does not make him controversial any more than Gordon Brown's disagreeing with the reporting in one paper or another makes him controversial.

All in all, you seem to be confusing being touched by or involved in something controversial with actually being controversial. I don't disagree that he actually is controversial, but the lead is not a place for adding new material. If you want to add it somewhere in the discussion of his career, assuming your source is reliable and supports it, have at it. The lead, however, is not the place for it. -Rrius (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Rrius wrote: "Perhaps the resignations were under controversial circumstances, but resigning is not per se controversial." No, but we're talking about Peter Mandleson's resignations aren't we? He didn't resign in order to spend more time with the family. He resigned because he broke the law by failing to declare a loan to his building society and then he resigned again because he helped Srichand Hinduja secure a UK passport after he pledged £1m in sponsorship for the Millennium Dome. Either you know nothing about either of these controversies, in which case I wonder why you are bothering to discuss the matter at all, or you know very well that both of these resignations were highly controversial and you are disputing stuff to cause trouble.

Rrius wrote: "you seem to be confusing being touched by or involved in something controversial with actually being controversial." The confusion is yours. "Controversial" when used to describe a person is defined as "enjoying or habitually engaging in controversy". So being "touched by or involved in something controversial" habitually is what the word "controversial" means. Clearly a person involved in one controversy does not automatically become controversial. On the other hand, how many instances do we need in order to satisfy the definition? Is there any number of verifiable controversies in a man's life that would persuade you to describe him as "controversial"?

Leaving the problem of induction aside for a moment, wouldn't it be great if we could do the Wiki thing and simply reference a reliable external source? Wouldn't it be great if an objective, unbiased internationally-respected news organisation had written a profile about him so we wouldn't have to jump through hoops satisfying the personal criteria of Rrius or philmillhaven? The good news is that we do have such a source. It's called the BBC and it published a profile on Mandelson which said that he is “Always a controversial figure”. (Other respectable media outlets have also called him controversial e.g. the Independent).

As for whether Peter Mandelson "enjoys or habitually engages in controversy" i.e. do we accord with the BBC's judgement on this matter? The fairest way to settle this is by reference to his own utterances. Again, I'll quote the man directly: "I was a very hard-nosed, uncompromising figure prepared to take down anything or anyone who stood in the way...I accepted too readily that [being liked] was a luxury that wasn't open to me. I had to be the hard man – and sometimes the hit man." He may feel differently about things now but it is entirely fair and justified to rely on a man's past when deciding on his present nature. Perhaps in 20 years' time we can all reflect that the latter part of his career he did not "enjoy or habitually engage in controversy". But for the time being it is both fair and reasonable to describe him as "controversial".Philmillhaven (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem not to have understood that my numbers were direct responses to yours. You said that two resignations self-evidently made him controversial. That is not true. If you meant that the situations under which those two resignations happened was controversial, you should have said so. Best would have been to set out an explanation of the particular controversies and how they make him controversial. To your next point, there is no number at which being involved in controversies makes one controversial. The judicial clerk of the House of Lords has been involved in untold numbers of controversies by accepting filings and the like, but is not controversial. Number is simply beside the point. As for whether we "accept" the BBC's opinion, I doubt it. It is not our business to characterise people that way. It may be that it is worth noting that that is the BBC's opinion, but that is not what you were arguing for. -Rrius (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Calling politicians "controversial" is a fatuous cliche. All politicians are controversial; controversy is what they do for a living. Are Brown and Cameron "uncontroversial" politicians? That would indeed be notable. It may be your view that Mandelson is more controversial than the average long-term Cabinet-level politician, but that is only your opinion, not a fact - controversialness cannot be quantified or calibrated. The correct approach is to list, at the appropriate place in the article, the exceptional things that Mandelson has done or said that have made him the centre of controversy. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Accordingly, I have deleted the word from the opening sentence. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent Mr Toad wrote: "Calling politicians "controversial" is a fatuous cliche." You think that the BBC is both "complacently or inanely foolish" (fatuous) and includes within its profiles "trite phrases or expressions" (cliche). If you have a quarrel with the BBC you should bring it up with them directly.

Intelligent Mr Toad wrote: "controversy is what they do for a living". No, politics is what they do for a living. Indeed, contrary to what you say, a common complaint against politicians is that they always evade difficult questions (i.e. seek to avoid controversy) and spend their lives trying to gain popularity because all they care about is getting elected/re-elected or sliding up preferment's greasy pole. As Mandelson put it in that same article: "I think that everyone in politics wants to be liked". The reason Mandelson is singled out by the BBC and other respected media outlets as worthy of the word "controversial", is precisely that he is not like other politicians in that regard (or at least was not like that in the past), he "accepted too readily that it [being liked] was a luxury that wasn't open to me".Philmillhaven (talk) 06:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There is still no consensus per WP:Consensus. This just looks like WP:POV. I think he's controversial too, but there needs to be a stiffer test than what we think. Incidentally, at least part of the controversy section is just plain wrong. Being assaulted by a protester is not controversial - regardless of the rationale of the perpetrator. There is more work and greater agreement required. Why not look for articles on politicians whose articles indisputably describe them as controversial? This might help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Galloway leaky_caldron (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem arises from a misunderstanding of the word "controversial". It may be perceived negatively, but so can other traits that would be considered valuable within a wider team (e.g. assertiveness, extreme attention to detail etc.). Peter Mandelson fulfilled a vital role in the New Labour movement in being the unpopular one who tackled issues and opponents head-on, enabling the likes of Tony Blair to get on with the "softer" side of things i.e. the populism that is also required in order to win elections.

While it is manifestly the case that there is currently no consensus between Intelligent Mr Toad and myself, I do not think he actually addressed any of my arguments. All he did was to dismiss as "fatuous cliche" the word "controversial" when applied to a politician (it clearly isn't), and falsely assert that using the word to describe Peter Mandelson "is only your opinion" (it's not MY opinion, it's the opinion of the BBC, the Independent and Mandelson himself).

Just seen you've added the George Galloway example - thanks, this will certainly be a useful comparison.

On another note, I agree with you re the assault.Philmillhaven (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have now looked at the article on George Galloway and I see the word "controversial" appears in the Lead section there. Such comparisons are never easy and Mandelson and Galloway are both controversial in different ways. Galloway is more strident and stentorian, but Mandelson is - by his own admission - no less willing to dispute and fight, famously declaring after his 2001 election victory: "I'm a fighter".

Where does this leave us? The definition of a controversial person as one who "enjoys or habitually engages in controversy" seems to apply squarely to Peter Mandelson. We have taken care to use the word advisedly (by reference to its definition), to consider evidence that would apply to this definition (controversies described and sourced within the article) and - most importantly - only used the word in the same context as credible sources like the BBC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philmillhaven (talk • contribs) 10:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If the BBC has described Mandelson as "controversial", then of course that fact can be stated: "The BCC has called Mandelson controversial", with reference. But it cannot be inserted as a statement of fact in the opening sentence of the article. That Mandelson is a politician is a fact. That he is controversial is an opinion, even if one held by the BBC. All opinions must eb sourced to the person wh has expressed that opinion, and at the appropriate place in the article. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As I suggested above, the Galloway article might help in framing this one. However, by the definition above, "enjoys or habitually engages in controversy" - we have no way of knowing what they "enjoy". "Habitually engages" is certainly more likely in the case of Galloway whereas Mandelson, almost by his nature, "attracts" controversy rather than engaging or initiating it. Hope this helps. leaky_caldron (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We do know that he engaged in controversy both habitually and willingly...he said so himself: "I accepted too readily that [being liked] was a luxury that wasn't open to me. I had to be the hard man – and sometimes the hit man."

But what is "controversy"? This is a very subjective term. Do not Brown, Cameron and many others engage in "controversy" every working day, at every PM's Question Time, in every press release? To describe a senior politician as "engaging in controversy" is so obviously the case as to amount to cliche, and when it is applied selectively to some politicians and not to others it amounts to editorialising. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I already provided a definition of "controversy" towards the top of this discussion (I can't help getting the feeling that you aren't making much of an effort to read what I have to say). Here it is again: Princeton's online dictionary defines controversy as "a dispute where there is strong disagreement". In the English language, as with all languages spoken by humans, meaning is conveyed through a shared understanding of what words mean, but without the concreteness or precision that may be possible with computer languages or in science. Consequently, it is easy to dispute endlessly the meaning of any word we happen to find objectionable (for whatever reason).Philmillhaven (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem not to understand that it is not the business of Wikipedia to pass judgment in that way. If you want to add that media sources call him a controversial figure, propose it. If you do, figure out where in the main body of the text you think it should go; it does not belong in the lead as it does not summarise the article. -Rrius (talk) 06:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem not to understand that I am not passing judgement and if I have my way nor would the Wiki article. The article should reflect the truth as it is portrayed in media such as books, websites, newspapers etc. In today's Guardian, Martin Kettle, the associate editor of the Guardian wrote about the "political biography of a man whose career has been so controversial for so long and which is so intertwined with the ups and downs of the modern Labour party.". http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/28/labour-conference-mandelson-darlingPhilmillhaven (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted it, this becomes tiresome, this editor has developed into a single purpose account [[5]] with the single purpose of adding that mandelson is a controversial liar. Off2riorob (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a form of ad hominem. I don't have much time in my life both to contribute to Wikipedia and what little time I do have is spent supporting a position that should be beyond dispute. For example, in today's Guardian, Martin Kettle, the associate editor of the Guardian writes that Mandelson's "career has been so controversial for so long". http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/28/labour-conference-mandelson-darling

How many reliable (Independent), impartial (BBC), sympathetic (Guardian) sources do I have to provide in order to describe as controversial a man whose career has been a litany of controversies?Philmillhaven (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine, that's Kettle's opinion, and at the appropriate place in the article, you can cite that opinion and use that quote. What you can't do is insert your opinion in the opening sentence of the article. Is the distinction between a fact and an opinion so hard to grasp? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Atheist ?

I have just removed category:English atheists from the article as I don't believe there are any sources confirming his religious views. Does anyone know of a reliable source one way or the other?—Ash (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems to have been based on The New Statesman, April with the quote "I don't do God". This is not a clear statement of Atheism as he could be lapsed, agnostic or perhaps just not really answering the question.—Ash (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with removal, afaik you need a strong clear citation preferably from the subject declaring his religious beliefs before we mention it. Off2riorob (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo of custard protest not relevant to discussion of custard protest?

Off2riorob removed an image of Lord Mandelson showing him covered in custard after it was splashed on him by a Plane Stupid protester. His reason was that it somehow violates BLP, is derogatory, and adds nothing of value. All of that is hard to understand. First, what part of BLP does this violate? Second, how is it "derogatory"? Finally, how can one fail to see the value of a photo of a protest in the discussion of that protest? Clearly the news outlets, print and television, did when this was originally in the news. Any other thoughts? -Rrius (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one who put the picture into the article, when I found it on the Plane Stupid article. I simply thought that it would obviously be a good idea to have a picture of this event that was mentioned in this article. User:Off2riorob apparently objects to it, and contacted me on my talk page about it (User talk:Hibernian#Plane stupid). As I told him there, the picture is notable and my well add value to the article, and I can see no logical reason to have it censored. It may well be offensive to Peter Mandelson, but that is hardly the concern of Wikipedia. --Hibernian (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If no one is going to comment on this, I think I'll just put it back then. --Hibernian (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the picture is needed: it's undue weight on a really minor incident and it's just not very encyclopaedic. If we had no other pictures then we'd have to make do, but that's not the case here.

Actually, I'd like to suggest the whole Plane Stupid paragraph should be changed to focus more on the issue. It should be titled "policies on climate change" or "support for heathrow expansion" and outline Mandelson's opinion/actions/policies on this issue. It could then mention the pie-throwing. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Second thoughts, can I suggest a more radical change to the section headings. I'm opposed to criticism/controversy sections because they split everything into "good" and "bad". I'd like to move the sections under "controversies" into different parts of the article.

The "Deripaska affair" and "Internet copyright policy" could be combined in some way under a single heading, as they both relate to improper dealings with those in business. It might be possible to start a "policies" section for the heathrow expansion section; or it could be combined with the "return to uk government section". The expenses section could probably be its own section, as is common for many MPs.

Any opinions? --h2g2bob (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Undemocratic anti-piracy bill leaked

This just in from BoingBoing: Mandelson proposes an outrageous bill giving him absolute power to screw around with citizens' lives to protect the entertainment industry. This is a Gay, Jewish, high ranking civil servant we are talking about, supporting a bill that basically allows him fascist powers. Is this a hoax? Sounds kind of incredible to me... --SeeFood (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Give over, this is an encyclopedia not a comic. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

He says he is not jewish. Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And in British terms he is not a civil servant. David Underdown (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Who said this was a comic? this is a very serious threat to democracy. If I was a British citizen I'd be quite alarmed. regrading Judaism - well, maybe I was wrong, but it's a pretty Jewish name. Maybe converted, or at least of Jewish descent, anyway. Regardless of that fact, this is a court-circumventing, privacy-violating scary piece of legislation. I'm not at all involved in British politics so I dare not edit the article myself, but I think this is worth mentioning there, as it joins his other initiatives on three strikes and all. I mention this as a suggestion to whoever happens to be active at updating this article.

Last thing, regarding "civil servant", I was not aware that the term was used differently in the UK, I'll go read up on the subtleties then :) --SeeFood (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Successor

There is a dispute going on as to how Lady Ashton should be listed in the infobox. An IP editor changed "Catherine Ashton" to her title. Off2riorob reverted claiming it is an MOS issue. I tend to agree with the IP editor here, and I really don't know what the MOS issue is. She has been linked as Baroness Ashton of Upholland in various places for years with nary a problem. -Rrius (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth, Lady Royall's infobox lists her as "The Baroness Ashton of Upholland". -Rrius (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Royall's page uses "The Baroness Ashton of Upholland" because it's about the Leader of the House of Lords and the peerage is used. Here, we are linking to the Commissioner for Trade which does not use the title and she is thusly "Catherine Ashton". This is akin to how Mandelson is only linked as "The Lord Mandelson" after he gained peerage, though in reverse. She hasn't lost it, but it isn't used when referring to her role in the EU, so we use her birth name. Should she re-enter British politics and become Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the link would use her title in peerage. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

recent addition regarding peerage

This recent addition is unsupported in this citation...

Lord Mandelson is said to be considering resigning his peerage, once the Constitutional Reform Bill becomes law, so that he can stand as an MP at the next general election [6] Off2riorob (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm revising the edit on the basis of this Guardian article of 18 November 2009. Vandagard (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

could you please offer it here first, I will look at the source but also to be honest, this is anyhow very speculative, there is not even a law yet, whatever I would say in this bio it is overly soon to add it as relevant here. Off2riorob (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

My edits do not just relate to Mandelson's peerage, which you seem to have an irrational problem with. You have reverted a series of other issues, such as image repositioning. Kindly put them all back into the article. Vandagard (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on your talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am taking the necessary action. Vandagard (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is the proposed addition to the lede:

'Answering speculation that he is considering resigning his peerage, once the Constitutional Reform Bill becomes law, so that he can again stand as an MP, Lord Mandelson told Evan Davis on BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Let's get the legislation on the statute book first. But I can share ... let you into the secret, Evan, that I have no present plan to do that." Hélène Mulholland (18 November 2009). "I have no 'present plan' to return to Commons, says Mandelson". The Guardian. Retrieved 22 November 2009. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)'

Comments please. Vandagard (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Wholly inappropriate for the lead and barely acceptable for a minor inclusion in the article body. Comment on speculation denying a possible action that could not happen until legislation is passed. Laughable nonesense. Leaky Caldron 22:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I totally agree. -Rrius (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

controversies section

this section was tagged for dispersal to the rest of the article, not by me but I followed through with the details of the template and another user, Vandagard is reverting to the old position, what are other peoples opinions regarding this matter, the edit summary of vanguard does not really explain just that they are reverting to a previous version which they prefer. Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

While any discussion is ongoing as the issue has been reverted I have replaced the template. Off2riorob (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is an undue concentration of issues in a single place. I'm not convinced they are all individually worthy of inclusion anywhere in the article - much less in a single section. Leaky Caldron 16:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, I also have issues with a couple of them really adding anything, but people are attached to them and I don't think we would find any degree of consensus to remove any of them. Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I would also put the final para. of the lead under scrutiny. This minor content is not referred to anywhere in the article body and would therefore appear to contravene wp:lead. Leaky Caldron 17:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

So called 'pheasant shoot'

This was added by Vandagard and I have reverted it for discussion here to see if there is any support for it adding anything of value to the article.

In November 2009, reports that Mandelson and Muammar Gaddafi's son had been the guests of Lord Rothschild at a country house shooting party led the opposition to question whether the minister should be associating with Saif Gaddafi, who had played an important role in the release of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Megrahi in August 2009. Mandelson's spokesman responded: "We do not offer a running commentary on Peter Mandelson's social engagements, but we can confirm that he has never taken part in a pheasant shoot and never will. He has always said he is happy to see Saif Gaddafi again if the occasion arose." [7] title=Peter Mandelson and Muammar Gaddafi's son at shooting party. Off2riorob (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

added info, the guardian state in their article (opinion piece) that they are reporting a story from the Spectator Blog, that original report is here . Off2riorob (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I get the impression that several editors of this article have recently fallen victim to the ownership syndrome: they seem more concerned about removing content than improving upon what is there already or actually adding new material to the article. For instance, Off2riorob reverted my edit above because he is of the opinion that it adds nothing of any value to section 5 - "Personal life". Other editors might disagree with that opinion. Vandagard (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we are not compelled to add every bit of published material/gosip about PM. As for ownership, I spent 2 hours grooming the article last night and only removed 180 bytes so it can't be me you're referring to ;). I think Rob is correct to query this. It's from or via a blog so that raises RS issues. Assuming there was a meeting - how is it significant and of critical importance? What threshold for inclusion is appropriate? Come back with some policy-based judgement. I'm feeling 40:60 against but could be swayed if there was sound reason. Leaky Caldron 14:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur, its gossip --Snowded ^TALK 14:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The edit was properly sourced to this Guardian article by journalist Helen Pidd, who went to the trouble of checking the facts with Mandelson's office. That's not gossip by my definition. Vandagard (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, but why is it sigificant? The Tories would obviously attempt to discredit any meeting PM attends if there is political capital. So might his Labour detractors. But what is the relevance of this meeting? If he had been Justice Minister I could see a legitimate and reportable COI for him, but he isn't so what bit of WP:policy supports it being included? Leaky Caldron 17:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Gossip can but true, but it may not be relevant. Mandelson's liking for the life style of the super-rich comes up from time time, its a curiosity no more. If a major scandal had arisen from this, or there had been serious allegations of bias then it would be relevant. Not everything which is cited has weight. --Snowded ^TALK 19:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, also as I said in regards to the Gardian op-ed piece, they cover their butts at the top..by saying.. The Spectator has reported..... Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, the Guardian article by journalist Helen Pidd is not an op-ed piece. Nor is it gossip. However, I have a vague feeling that Off2riorob has an ownership agenda here: just look at his entries from 7 July 2009 on this page (Bilderberg Group). How often does he say an edit is "worthless", and generally try to control the shape of this article? And is he in league with Leaky caldron? Fascinating stuff! Vandagard (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"In league", LOL. I can assure you, Rob is in a league of his own! Leaky Caldron 21:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah ha, I'll take that as a compliment Leaky. This is fascinating. Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems fairly trivial to me. I hate to follow Mandelson's spokesman, but I don't see that his Wikipedia article needs to include a running commentary on his social engagements. The report seems to be broadly true, but as noted that doesn't stop it being gossipy. Equally as noted, if there's any verifiable substantive scandal underlying this, that would be another matter. --Nickhh (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Off2riorob, and I dare you to say he and I are in league. -Rrius (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha, well.. thanks to all for the comments. I bet even Mandy is laughing reading this. Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you think his ego is such that he regularly checks his own Wikipedia page? Surely not. --Nickhh (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That was speculation, next week it will be in the article, According to the owner of the article, Mandy's ego is so big he checks his own wikipedia biography for errors. Off2riorob (talk) 11:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find civil servants are paid to do it on his behalf. Actually, I'm sure that's really not true. The Labour party do it. --Nickhh (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Such a shame. I was hoping that he would be so impressed by recent edits that he might offer me a job as a communications director!! Leaky Caldron 23:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Citation required

In the Second resignation section there is a section in need of a citation, the only one left in the article, I have had a look and couldn't see anything, can any one else find a citation to support it? Off2riorob (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's easy enough to find news reports from the time documenting fears that Labour might lose the by election, eg here, but I can't find anything specifically saying that Mandelson "convinced his colleagues that Labour would perform well". It's not that significant a point, so maybe just remove it?--Nickhh (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind removing a bit about Mandelson's prediction, I think what it is referencing to is that he wanted the EU job and the labour cabinet were worried that they would lose the by election and Mandy must of had to convince them that it would all be OK. I am still having a look round for different citations, that one is half good Nickhh, and covers some of the content but not all and I rather not use it as it is a bit reflective of the press in general and totally misleading, is states...

From the independent..."Mandelson ally to be chosen for Hartlepool poll Patrick Diamond, political adviser to Tony Blair and friend of Peter Mandelson, is expected to be chosen this week to be Labour's candidate in what could be the longest and nastiest by-election of the year".

He wasn't chosen at all. Off2riorob (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have trimmed it of the speculation which should make it easier to cite, please add one if you can find a good one, or ask me to revert it if you think it was better before. Off2riorob (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added citations. Off2riorob (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The infobox pic

I like the pic that is being removed from the box, the IP says it is an iconic picture but I would disagree, any comments. On a side note this is a situation that I have been coming across quite a bit lately, some photographers have been releasing and uploading pics to the wiki and adding them to articles (repeatedly) in an effort to get publicity, I am not sure whether this is good for the wikipedia or not, but (imo) this is one of those situations, any comments, do people think that the current picture is a good picture compared to the other one? Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You also fail to mention your investigation into the source of the image and your subsequent ongoing aggressive editing of the article that refers to the photographer who took the picture. Professional photographers who offer free good quality, recent images of public servants are not as widespread as you might think, the only publicity they garner for themselves seems to be from petty-minded editors with a more than apparent "ownership" agenda on their chosen pages. I am not the photographer but I supplied the photo. I made mistakes concerning the correct permissions. These will be rectified shortly. Mr1001 (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What ever , the public domain is a big place, issuing pictures for free is a big step.. as they may not even be added to any article, stop pointing your blame at me when it is you that is in the wrong, wikipedia takes copyright infringement very seriously. Off2riorob (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Your flippant attitude towards me is perhaps reflective of the bullying nature- hidden behind wiki protocol -that you display to all who attempt any changes on this page. For anyone who doubts the aggressive editing of Off2riorob please feel free to visit the article he is attempting to systematically destroy over at Peter Gallina —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr1001 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Again I will say to you, stop putting out, take responsibility for your own actions. Off2riorob (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the neccessary steps and obtained permisson from the author and replaced the image. Thank you for your assistance in helping me better understand the wikipedia commons copyright permisson system. Please do not remove the image again unless you have good cause since we have seen there are other editors here who prefer this image to the one you constantly replace it with. Mr1001 (talk) 10:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The status of the picture is still not clear I have asked a question at media about it, lets wait and see what the reply is first. Off2riorob (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please wait to see the comments at [8] . Off2riorob (talk) 10:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

fair enough Mr1001 (talk) 10:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter Mandelson a Communist

Peter Mandelson was once a member of the Young Communist League. Considering he is now a labour party member, this is relevant in the "early life" section. Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/andrew-brons-the-quiet-academic-with-a-silly-teenage-nazi-past-1700175.html --78.105.115.195 (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the source is adequate. It's contained within a quote by Brons and probably fails wp:rs. Leaky Caldron 20:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this source may be adequate: Donald Macintyre: "Mandelson and the Making of New Labour", pages 28-32. There can be no doubt that Mandelson was a member of the YCL in 1971 and 1972. But is this really relevant? 78.105.115.195 thinks it is relevant "considering he is now a labour party member". What does this mean? And if he was a conservative party member? Would a membership be relevant too? What kind of interest is behind the question? And remember: the communist party was on a Euro-communist line and criticized the invasion of Czechoslovakia, so what is the meaning of such a membership? And what about a possible membership in the communist party under these circumstances? And what does this "flirtation with British communism", as Macintyre calls it, mean for Mandelsons fights with the Trotskyites and their allies on the Bennite left of the Labour Party? No, nothing, it is not relevant in my humble opinion. --13Peewit (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The BBC seems to think it is worth mentioning in a profile on him, so I fail to see why we must exclude mention of his membership of the YCL.[9] It's been mentioned in numerous sources, the first I can find being MacIntyre in 1995:[10] Here's a whole BBC article about it,[11] and another discussion of it in an article about Labour figures who used to be communists.[12] His entry in the Dictionary of British Politics mentions it, and him getting an MI5 file as a result. Fences&Windows 22:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't see it as a big issue worthy of inclusion, there was a comment previously in the article and it was removed in a small rewrite as of little value or not well cited, I can't remember, the op ed pieces are out, what is left> If someone wants to add something about this could we have a look at the desired edit and the supporting citation, thanks. How long was he a member for and what was his involvement, did he attend meetings and if so where? Looking it says brief membership, whatever that means and he says he followed someone in, seems like a pretty minor involvement to me. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@fences:- the question wasn't whether to exclude his Communist past, it was about the validity of the specific source offered by User:78.105.115.195. Leaky Caldron 22:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No the original one is someone else commenting, weak imo. No, the independant, no, almost doesn't mention Mandy, and then only the he was a commie but we don't call him one now do we... comment..no. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is included, it needs to be done very deftly. It would be easy to write it in a way that paints him as a far-left politician, something simply not borne out by his time in government. I agree with Rob that some indication of how long he was a member is apt, but talking about attendance and meeting location is a bit much. Best would be something along the lines of "MI-5 opened a file on Mandleson during his brief membership in the YCL". As for whether it should be included, it's a close case, but if it can be worked into what's already here, then I'd say go for it. I don't think it would be right however to just throw it in as a one-sentence paragraph apropos of nothing. -Rrius (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I am either way about inclusion especially as Mandelson has commented on his involvement, but as Rruis says, it should not be excessive as it clearly does not particularity define his political motivations and any comment should not be stand alone but deftly inserted into the text. Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it clearly belongs in the article. A politician's ideological trajectory is of interest. It's far more relevant than who his grandfather was or what his father's job was. Rrius' formulation is useful, "MI-5 opened a file on Mandleson during his brief membership in the YCL". --Jonund (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)