Talk:Peter Mandelson

"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)

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.

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

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)

Bilderberg

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

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)