Talk:Peter Mandelson

message: Was Mr. Mandelson involved in intercepting voicemails and email messages during his time as New Labours Press Baron?  Can anyone recall the names of the journalists he arranged to have sacked shortly after they filed negative copy about him?  212.139.107.102 (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Close Relationship With Murdoch Whilst Head of New Labour's Media and Communications 

message: So what's all this about this dude mistaking mushy peas for guacamole, and why is it not in the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yugyug (talk • contribs) 19:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Great Story but I think this was put about by Neil Kinnock as a bit of a joke.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.234.2 (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mushy peas

message: As the Digital Economy Bill is about to destroy our ability to post an honest Wiki page, why are you bothering to Edit it anymore?
The bill  gives the government power to demand the blocking of any website Under clause 11, which can be to (a) limit the speed or other capacity of the service provided to a subscriber; (b) prevent a subscriber from using the service to gain access to particular material, or limit such use; (c) suspend the service provided to a subscriber; or (d) limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way.
This means they can effectively order your internet service provider to block access to certain websites and/or limit your internet speed
You think its' about stopping illegal internet downloads?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.57.214 (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital Economy Bill 

message: With regards this nickname, I reference a Guardian blog on the election which shows a picture of a newspaper which the man himself has signed as 'the Dark Lord'. I'd take it that this is pretty irrefutable evidence for it's inclusion.[]
:We have Mandy in the article, which is perhaps his best known nickname, perhaps if someone had reliable citations and some content to add with it and could show the notability of the nickname there could be a case for inclusion, but no way not ever in the lede like you just inserted it. He has had so many nicknames, the comeback kid, the prince of darkness and so on that we could have a long list of them. Mostly they are just partisan political posturing and press attempts to sell their chip wrappers. Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, never ever in the lede. Yes I have looked at the references, all a bit, Mandelson jokingly signed as the dark lord when asked to by a passenger on a train, doesn't make the nickname any more notable than the one that preceded it, which has been around a long time and is also not in the article , the prince of darkness, it is all a bit valueless, but lets wait and see what other editors think. What is the rational that has been presented behind this upgraded nickname? Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Margaret Thatcher was widely known by the public as “Maggie”. Her article does not mention that nickname (although some of the referenced article titles do). I would suggest the use of the Dark Lord as a nickname is used by an extremely small minority, typically those in politics or the political media. It may therefore be invalid per WP:UNDUE. Leaky Caldron 15:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't think it should be included at all. If there is support to include multiple press given nicknames, then far down (very far) with the other nickname, I think in the old days before the article was cleaned up and improved there was even a nickname section. I would also point out that an IP in this range has been repeatedly attempting to add this dark lord to the lede for months now. Off2riorob (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

text: The nickname is already mentioned in the "Media relations" section in relation to his being a spin doctor, so the additional mention is wholly unnecessary. I think it has existed for a while without detracting from the article, so perhaps we should leave it there? In any event, Rob is right that it should absolutely not be in the lead. -Rrius (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, there it is, it sits pretty well there. I don't think it needs to be updated as it would perhaps move into undue weight territory. Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Dark Lord

message: The Dark Lord debate has brought into focus what has bothered me about this article for some time. Mandelson is known as an expert in the art of politics who was a key player in Blair's political successes and in holding back the coups against Brown. Instead of discussing that, the article spends quite a lot of words on the Deripaska, Mandelson's EU pension, and the copyright-law allegations. Reading this article, one would come away with this basic story: Mandelson was involved in some lefty causes as a young man, that was intermittently involved in Labour politics until the mid-1980s, and that he ran the 1987 and 1997 general election campaigns. Mandelson held various cabinet posts, but kept getting himself into ethics troubles. He then went to the EU Commission, bringing his penchant for ethical lapses with him, and squabbled with Pres. Sarkozy. Then, for no apparent reason, Mandelson returned to Cabinet, being given a life peerage, and where he was heavily involved in Cabinet business, became more popular with the Labour rank-and-file than the Deputy Leader of the party, and accumulated portfolios and status as time went on. Along the way, he managed to continued his habit of sparking controversies over his ethics.
That just does not seem like a fair summary of his life, yet I think it is a fair summary of the article. -Rrius (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are issues with the article but it is hard to get an acceptable balance, LC improved it mostly to what we have now. Perhps after the election we could work on a rewrite as there could well be a few major changes. Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not so much a matter of balance as it is that an entire part of what he is has to this point been left out of the article. Striking a balance will be difficult because talking about his political contributions invites all sorts of normative judgements about those contributions. It is still a thing worth doing, however. Since much of what Mandelson did during the Blair years (including siding with Blair over Brown for the leadership and the effects that had on his relationship with the latter) happened before 2001, it's not clear what effect the election will have on that. Also, an explanation of why Mandelson was invited back to the Cabinet in 2008 and how he helped stave off plots to defenestrate Brown during the last year and a half won't likely change much after the election. I could work up the 2008-to-present aspects, but I would need some serious help with the Blair-years info. -Rrius (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't support what would be a lot of changes at this time, please wait a week until after the election. The article is getting close to 3000 views a day, rising from around 1000 a day and the rise in page views is a likely affect of the imminent election, for this reason I don't support major work on the article until after the election. I also think all of that how he helped to defend brown from plots and stuff could be given a lot of weight, this could be said of all the ministers or most of them and is a normal part of their job. Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if others support your view, we should still discuss the situation. Waiting until 7 May to edit the article does not mean waiting until that date to start discussing changes. It was never my intention to elbow in and make huge changes to the article without consensus, as should be evident from the very fact that I brought this up on the talk page rather than just adding information and from the fact that I said I don't think I'm equipped to do it on my own. In any event, there is no reason why we must wait until the election to talk about the contours of any additions or even to begin gathering sources and drafting language to be added later, let alone discussing in the first instance the advisability of what I propose. -Rrius (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you are trying to say about his involvement in killing plots, but reliable sources verify that he was integral in seeing off plots, and some even detailed his role in killing the June 2009 plot. I'm also not sure what you think I want to do here, but I'm not talking about turning this into an article about his political machinations. Rather, I think his involvement in early New Labour politics should involve more than a list of Cabinet offices he held and the tidbit about the Dome. His return to Cabinet should reflect the essentially universal understanding that brining him back was meant to mollify Blairites and take advantage of Mandelson's political skills to secure Brown's leadership. It would make sense, in that context, to mention that he is in fact widely credited with helping put down revolts since his return. In the end, we're probably talking about a few hundred words for each period, not earth-shattering changes. -Rrius (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You see, we are in disagreement already, what is this killing plots issue? Do you want to add a lot of stuff about that? Look as I said, why not wait a week? Are you wanting to add that Brown has been kept in power by mandelson? I think you should need to be a bit careful asserting too much weight to that claim. It is also a bit opinionated, as I said all cabinet ministers are in that business. After the last attempted coup "Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, also issued a muted statement of support"  here "Lord Mandelson shrugs off reports of rift with Gordon Brown"  Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As to plot killing, you said, "I also think all of that how he helped to defend brown from plots and stuff could be given a lot of weight, this could be said of all the ministers or most of them and is a normal part of their job." I have no idea what that means. The best interpretation I can come up with is that you somehow think I want to dedicate a whole section to this, which is now what you are directly asking about. I don't know how you could read the last two sentences of my last contribution and have that question. Of course I don't. I think it is worth mentioning that he is widely regarded as having helped put down plots since he joined the Cabinet. I have no idea where you get the idea that I want the article to say that Mandelson kept Brown in power. That is a ridiculous overstatement, and I'm confused as to why you would attribute POV pushing to me when I made clear from the very start of this that my goal is to add to it a critical part of who he is: a deft political operator. Nowhere in any of what I've said have I given any indication that I think Mandelson single-handedly saved Brown. As to whether all Cabinet minsiters are in the job of saving the PM, that is plainly wrong. When Mandelson was on the phone trying to strangle a coup in his crib, he was on the phone with Cabinet ministers like David Miliband, whose resignation, call for Brown to resign, or silence would have been key to ending Brown's premiership. What's more, this is not "a bit opinionated"—it is well documented in the press, and in any event, it would be a cinch to provide scads of sources for "Since rejoining Cabinet in 2008, Mandelson is widely credited with helping stave off challenges to Brown's leadership." If there are sufficient sources to say he was lukewarm when the most recent one happened, that's fine, but it doesn't undo what happened before. Finally, why do you think it is necessary to hold off a discussion until after the election? I can see an argument for not making changes until then (I don't agree that readers should get a skewed portrait until then), but I cannot find a reason not to discuss and prepare. -Rrius (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article focus 

message: I added to the opening  "due to actions of his which were subject to intense media criticism" re his 2 cabinet resignations. What must not happen is this doesnt get mentioned in the opening. Its called whitewashing and is in clear violation of our NPOV policy. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree totally with this addition, it clarifies and makes clear that both resignations were surrounded with controversy and in some respects scandalous. More importantly however it lays blame where due in an unbiased manner which is very much in fitting with wikipedia  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.65.73 (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for resignations

message: Why has this page repeatedly failed to give full depth to the reasons this man was forced to resign from UK Government so often, and failed to even mention his recent involvement in a failed libel action against the Daily Mail in connection with totally compromising his role as EU Commissioner by accepting hospitality from Russian billionaire? In their absence, the entire article looks suspiciously like it is being edited by someone who is in his employ.80.42.236.65 (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, tone it down. If you want to discuss problems you see with the article, please do so without assuming that the article was written by conspiracy of people seeking to promote Mandelson. As to the substance, it seems to me that the article provides sufficient weight to his resignations. As for the libel action, he was a side player at best. In an article that mentioned Mandelson and the Russian oligarch, Rothschild was called a puppet master. He sued; he lost. Mandelson's part in that story is incidental. Mandelson's relationship with Deripaska itself is already dealt with in a long paragraph under "European commissioner"; if anything, that story is given undue weight. -Rrius (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitewashing Sleaze Allegations 

message: The article claims that "Mandelson was able to secure close friendships within the Labour Party because of uncle Alexander Butler, who had worked alongside many important Labour politicians during the 1960s". I can find no reference to an Alexander Butler in Paul Routledge's biography of Mandelson, nor through searching on Google (except two remarks that seem to be based on a reading of this article). Can anyone provide a citation? Routledge is fairly clear that it was Mandelson's father who had close friendships with Labour people in the 60s (and Mandelson himself visited 10 Downing Street as a boy).--86.178.142.209 (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander Butler 

message: I was interested to see that it was China that approached Baron Mandelson to lead the International
Monetary Fund. Could anyone please explain the connection? Thank you.91.194.221.231 (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Monetary Fund 

message: This article has a lot on how he used to be a Communist or something close to it. The question this lead me to, as a reader, is how did he turn into a New Labourite? For a Communist, that's nearly as much of an about-face as if he were to endorse Margaret Thatcher, at least if you take typical left wing rhetoric at face value. But there's little in here on how he evolved politically. It's almost as if his radical background is included merely for the sake of "opposition research". 117.199.189.97 (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  His political evolution 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Peter Mandelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090312051426/http://politics.guardian.co.uk:80/hoc/constituency/0,,-1005,00.html to http://politics.guardian.co.uk/hoc/constituency/0,,-1005,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081126051311/http://www.moscowtimes.ru/article/1010/42/371829.htm to http://www.moscowtimes.ru/article/1010/42/371829.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Peter Mandelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151017094626/http://publicaffairsasia.com/publicaffairsasia/FeatureView.do?id=97 to http://www.publicaffairsasia.com/publicaffairsasia/FeatureView.do?id=97
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140506075723/http://www.policy-network.net:80/content/350/socialdemocracyobservatory to http://www.policy-network.net/content/350/socialdemocracyobservatory
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Peter Mandelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23601732-mandelson-throws-his-weight-behind-third-heathrow-runway.do
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713192049/http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Lazard%20-%20Mandelson%201-21-2011.pdf to http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Lazard%20-%20Mandelson%201-21-2011.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A small edit war is brewing over this. The Guardian gives the date as September 1979, but an IP editor insists that it was December, because he was there. The only other source I've been able to find is this, which does suggest that it was December. Given the disagreement between two reliable sources, and the relative irrelevance of the actual month, I'm therefore removing the month unless and until someone can find either further or more authoritative sources. ninety:one   12:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of election to Lambeth Borough Council 

message: I've just searched the article and this talk page for Anything about Mandelson's involvement in this very important (and current) topic.
As far as I can see, his and Tony Blair's involvement in Post Office Horizon and Fujitsu UK has been neglected !
I am not confident in editing the main article, but I am sure it should be included. Keith T. 09:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post Office Horizon scandal