Talk:Tony Blair

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Archives
May 2003 to Jan 2005 Feb 2005 to Nov 2005 Jan 2006 to Jul 2006 Jul 2006 to Feb 2007 Apr 2007 to Jul 2008

Decision to go to war in Iraq

It seems very strange to me that this article doesn't contain a specific section about Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq and that there is no mention of it in the introduction. this is arguably the most important and unpopular decision that he made in his life and it deserves more attention than it has received in this article so far. i will be drafting something about this over the next couple of days.Zalali (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably would be good to reference the conflict with the country he was representing at the time and the current anger at his deception to acheive parlimentary support: at the start of 2010, a YouGov poll for the Sunday Times said 52% of people believed Blair deliberately misled the country over the war. and 23% thought he should be tried as a war criminal. A the time, the biggest protest march ever seen in the UK (about a million people) occurred in London to express public's opposition to war.

Also be sure to include the latest evidence from the Chilcot enquiry and the evidence from the Butler enquiries where it has been established that no intelligence suggesting that Iraq had weapons of Mass Destruction was found and that contrary to this, Tony Blair stated that he had seen evidence that they had WMD and that such weapons could be launched within 45 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.207.235 (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

An article about how the BBC exploited resurgent British post-Cold War nationalism to systematically sully Blair's leadership might be a good idea.

69.171.160.32 (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Expenses and 'Blind Trust'

A Section on this topic should be included - he appears to have amassed a small fortune whilst in Public Office - where on Earth does all his money come from?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.33.143 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

THERE IS SUCH A DEARTH OF DETAILED INFORMATION ON THE SOURCES OF HIS EXTENSIVE PERSONAL WEALTH AND THE STRUCTURES OF MR BLAIR'S MANY COMPANIES, THAT 'THE GUARDIAN' NEWSPAPER LAUNCHED (ON 1 DEC, 2009) A GLOBAL COMPETITION, ASKING FOR ANY INFORMATION/EXPLANATIONS -SEE "THE BLAIR MYSTERY" AT <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/series/blair-mystery>. There are several companies called 'Windrush' involved, but they do not appear to have any Directors - I'm only posting this as I think it is information that his Wiki entry should contain, natches:). 79.69.99.83 (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)drlofthouse79.69.99.83 (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) People are more likely to read and take note of your comments if you write them normally. I find it a strain to try sorting through a paragraph of text in block capitals, so I generally avoid reading such comments. If you have something insightful to say please feel free to drop by again. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there any connection between the 'Windrush' company that Tony Blairs money goes through (according to 'The Guardian' (see above), and 'Windrush Communications', the British company that organised the Iraq Procurement Conferences, where corporations carved up and privatised Iraq's assets <http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=2269> ?? 79.69.99.83 (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Dunnobut79.69.99.83 (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

French?

Does Tony blair speak french? LeUrsidae96 (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, remarkably well. Beganlocal (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes... He was speaking fluently, entirely in French, during several 2010 interviews with French television channels

where is my home? Jerusalem

this recent addition...

On January 14th, 2009 Blair, upon a visit to the British Embassy in Washington D.C, USA, described his home as being 'Jerusalem'.

does not reflect the reality of what happened or what is in the cite. he did not describe his home to be jerusalem at all. and the spokespersons comment is also relevent, that is actuallu I also agree the comment is worthless and is inserted to again add undue weight to the fact that some people think that blair is alligned to the israelis.

Could the last inserter of the comment please rewrite to more reflect what actually happened. Or even better, just remove it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. Apologies for my delay in replying to the talk page. I have been busy off-wiki. Anyway, I think it is interesting that he wrote in his home as Jerusalem, but concede that you probably wouldn't find this titbit in Encyclopaedia Britannica. It may explain a lot about the Israeli connection etc, but it is WP:UNDUE. Beganlocal (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Beganlocal, thank you for the welcome. Perhaps it is his age? A bit of a throwaway comment and thanks for cleaning it up. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, This isn't undue weight at all. Secondly, Wikipedia isn't Encyclopaedia Britannica (thankfully) and isn't trying to copy that encyclopaedia. And of course 'what the Encyclopaedia Britannica would do' is not a valid reason for whether or not something should be included in a Wikipedia article or not. I agree it needs a more accurate description and I shall restore the info and make it more accurate. Vexorg (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put it back, two editors are in agreement that it is not worth being in the article. that is a limited consensus' Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

restored and worded better :) - IMO this is just the sort of properly sourced info that is valuable for Wikipedia articles. They give a valuable insight into the people who are the subject of the article. The sort of thing that enriches Wikipedia and sets it apart from the stuffy old encyclopaedias like Britannica. Vexorg (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And Off2riorob it's not doing wikipedia any decent service if you are editing wikipedia from a political bias, i.e "..... and is inserted to again add undue weight to the fact that some people think that blair is aligned to the Israelis." - Blair is pro-Israel it's a fact. Do you think it's wrong to be Pro-Israel? Is that why you are against info pertaining to this? Vexorg (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid for this bit of trivia to be in the article you are going to have to show some cite somewhere that explains its importance for you. Otherwise "Blair puts wrong place as home in guest book" is totally unremarkable and unimportant. What appears to be happening here is that you are suggesting that something of more significance is implied by what he wrote. That, of course, is your opinion. Your opinion is not notable and it is not up to you to interpret what Blair may have meant. Please stop adding it until consensus is established. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"Your opinion is not notable" - and neither is your opinion that it is "is totally unremarkable and unimportant." I would say it's up to the reader of the article to decide what is interesting or not interesting in a wikipedia article not you.

"Blair puts wrong place as home in guest book" - this is a strawman. Given that Blair is of sound mind it's unlikely he wrote it by mistake. I'm not personally suggesting anything at all. It is Blair himself that is suggesting that there is something of significance by citing his home has being Jerusalem.

"and it is not up to you to interpret what Blair may have meant." - You appear to be fabricating an argument out of thin air here. I haven't made any interpretations whatsoever. I have simply added what I think is an interesting piece of info about Tony Blair which is properly sourced. Vexorg (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I try to stand up for neutrality, and for the subjects within our WP:BLP's. Blair likes all people the same (in my opinion). It is unremarkable and unimportant. His home is in England, perhaps as he travels a lot he put the place he had just come from, a simple mistake an unnotable, even his spokeman couldn't be bothered to comment...man signs quest book and puts wrong address. really! Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

So? It's not upto you or I to decide why Blair decided to cite his 'home' ( not necessarily address ) as Jerusalam. The fact is Blair decided to write Jerusalem in a guestbook in the British Embassy. I make no judgement on why he did it but it was obviously of some significance to himself. You are trying to deny readers of Wikipedia this information and thus denying them the opportunity to make up their own mind why Blair put his home as being Jerusalem. There's absolutely nothing wrong with trivia being a part of Wikipedia articles anyway. Vexorg (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh and Off2riorob, two editors agreeing is not consensus at all really. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CON#What_consensus_is Vexorg (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are now three editors against inserting this material and you that wants to insert it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And? The wikipedia article on consensus still applies. Consensus needs rationale. Even if a 100 people just say "I don't want it on the article!!!" it still doesn't' provide proper consensus. One of your items of rationale was politically motivated. i,e you didn't want it in the article becuase"..... and is inserted to again add undue weight to the fact that some people think that Blair is aligned to the Israelis." Given that it is a fact that Blair is pro-Israel your comment can only be politicly biased. I don't think that is an ethical reason to edit wikipedia. I'm afraid notable people who are given articles in Wikipedia do have political biases. Your only other rationale is that your think it is "unremarkable and unimportant" and "Worthless" I'm afraid you need to provide proper rationale, not point of view. The other rationale given that it's 'undue weight' is just absurd given it's a tiny short paragraph in a long article. I'm afraid you people are going to have to provide proper rationale for removing properly sourced info. I will be reinserting this at a later date, but in regard to respecting the guidelines of not edit warring I shall leave it for some time to allow others to comment. And in any case if I do restore it right now I know you will just edit war and remove it again. Vexorg (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to remind you, this in unnotable and unworthy of insertion in the article. "Blair puts wrong place as home in guest book" please, get over it. Off2riorob (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to remind YOU ... Only in your opinion. Vexorg (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Vexorg could explain to us why he thinks that this incident is worthy of conclusion? Blair in his time must have signed thousands of things of significance, written thousands of words of significance, visiting thousands of places. We can't include them all. So what is special about this? If this could be explained I'm sure his case for inclusion would be a lot clearer. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've already explained this. Obviously those who just think "blair puts wrong place in guestbook" can't see the significance so I'll explain it again. Unless you're completely drunk you don't write the location of your home in a guestbook by mistake. And by saying "Blair puts wrong place in guestbook" you are telling Blair he was wrong. Don't you think Blair might have done this on purpose because that's where he believes his spiritual home is? Or can't you see further than bricks and mortar? The reason I feel this is notable for inclusion in the article is becuase it gives an insight into the inner mind of Blair. At least I can give proper rationale for the inclusion of this. No one has given any real rationale for not including it. Vexorg (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This confirms all that has already been said. You consider it important because of your own analysis of what you think Blair might have meant by it, and what it may indicate about Blair's inner mind. Please click on the links in the previous sentence for policy based, real rationale for not including it. If you were to add this to the article it would be removed for all these reasons, yet without them, there is absolutely nothing to indicate why it is not a trivial event. Basically you want to hint to the reader that they should read into the event some unsaid significance, and reach the same conclusion you have.

Notice I am not offering any opinion about your theory. You could well be correct. What I am saying is Wikipedia is not the place for speculation.

As long as this lacks a reliable source that spells out what you are claiming, an authority who is well placed to offer insight into Blair's inner-most thoughts, then you've got nothing. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with Escape Orbit here, comment is not notable except if you add your own opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's only not notable in YOUR opinion. And once again I'm not claiming anything. I'm also not suggesting putting the suggestion of a spiritual home in the article itself anyway. And contrary to your claim I'm not suggesting putting the in of in the article becuase I think it means something specific like a spiritual home. You are still missing the point. I have reached no conclusion as to what Blair meant by it, I'm claiming it means something of significance, and of that basis it is worthy of inclusion. All you've done Escape Orbit is waive 3 WP:XXXX in front of my eyes, and none of which apply. So currently we are still at a time where there is no rationale for not including it other than YOUR opinion that it is not important enough to include. On the other hand I have shown that someone who states their home as being somewhere other than where they own bricks and mortar by default has some significance. If you can provide any rationale for not including it then I will concede. Vexorg (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If it was notable then you could produce a better cite. If it was significant you could produce examples of political commentators discussing it. But you can't. I know, I've googled it and your Daily Mail cite is the best of a very poor bunch.

All you have is your speculation that what appears, on the face of it, to be a trivial event has some deeper significance, but you're not saying what, just that there is. Fact is, you have no idea whether Blair meant it as a deeply felt spiritual tribute, a statement on his role as peace envoy, a throwaway quip or a trivial mistake. And neither does your cite.

What other apparently trivial things has Blair done that we can speculate may have greater significance? I've seen him wear shirts of different colours on different days. I'm not saying what it means, but I am claiming there's a deeper meaning to it all and it is significant. Shall we include it?

As for your Daily Mail cite, other than a "mid-life crisis' dig, what exactly is this article saying about this event? Well nothing, no insight as to why exactly he may have done it. Just a trivial event used as an excuse for a cheap jipe and lead in for a critical opinion piece. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

So basically you cannot come up with any rationale for not including the info. The fact you have resorted to a silly analogy about different shirts simply proves this. And you are still making the mistake of basing your rationale on kind of speculation from myself. Even though I've shown that the rationale for the inclusion of the article has NOTHING to do with any POV or speculation on my part. This is proven by your following statement ... "Fact is, you have no idea whether Blair meant it as a deeply felt spiritual tribute" No sh*t! Of course I don't. I never claimed that I did. The significance is in Blair's own actions. Like I say if you can come up with any rationale for not including this info then I shall concede. But based upon your replies above I won't hold my breath. I would ask you read this discussion properly before wasting your time repeating the same old false rationale. Vexorg (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've listed several rational, you just don't want to hear them and you still fail to grasp what I am saying. Blair's days are full of actions that never go into this article. However, you have decided that this particular action is significant. You don't want to speculate how it is significant, that's fine and good. But unless we have some cites that explain the significance, then I am at a loss to understand why it should go in. You saying "it's significant" is not enough.

So I'll make it simple for you; produce just one other cite from a reputable source that discusses this. That will go a long long way to prove this significance you speak of. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no need. The significance speaks for itself. "I've listed several rational! - no you haven't. You've listed several reasons that don't stand up to any scrutiny. The basis of your false rationale has been focusses upon my alleged POV, which I 've proven time and time again has nothing to do with it. You've even gone down the route of standing firm and erect and beating me with several WP:XXXX guidelines, which you even had to hide behind hyperlinks - "of your own analysis of what you think Blair might have meant by it, and what it may indicate about Blair's inner mind." and "this lacks a reliable source" - and none of those apply as I have shown.

"However, you have decided that this particular action is significant. - no you're still not getting it. I haven't decided this is significant. Blair himself has made it significant. But then someone who thinks wearing different coloured shirts on different days is a valid analogy is hardly likely to 'get it'. Why are you spending such an inordinate amount of energy fighting to not let a short paragraph into the article. I've heard of exclusion ism but this is ridiculous. The info speaks it's own significance, the info is properly sourced from a reputable source.

Your only rationale seems to be that Blair has done other things, so becuase of that we shouldn't include this one. Frankly that's ridiculous. Vexorg (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For something that "Blair himself has made significant" surprisingly few know or care about it. Produce a cite. It's quite simple. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I already have. The info is properly sourced. i.e it is cited. It's worth remembering that the value of information is not based upon appeal to popularity. It's quite simple ...... you are unable to produce any rationale for the exclusion of this info and you are progressively clutching at straws. I'll repeat the question ( although your previous avoidance of it speaks volumes ) .... Why are you spending such an inordinate amount of energy fighting to not let a short paragraph into the article? I've heard of exclusionism but this is ridiculous. The info speaks it's own significance, the info is properly sourced from a reputable source. Vexorg (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And it has been repeatedly explained to you. Unless the significance can be explained, it is undue weight for a trivial, insignificant event. You insist that the significance is not being added by your own original research. So where is the significance?? Even your single cite cannot explain the significance. You argue that "Blair himself has made it significant". How?? Because he did it? As I have tried to explain,; it may have been a mistake, it may have been a trivial joke. We don't know. And with the continued lack of a reliable source making serious comment on the event, we may never know.

I am being a stickler about this because, as you well know, some would use the event to imply that it meant something about Blair's alleged allegiances. And it would be reasonable for the reader to assume that it meant something more than it appears, otherwise why would the article mention it? But, as I have explained, we don't know that it means anything at all. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Blair describing his home as Jerusalem is interesting and cited. There are various interpretations that can be put on it. But sources would be needed for those. I think he mean't it as a sign of his commitment to the peace process rather than siding with Israel as others seem to interpret it. Blair and Labour Friends of Isreal support a 2 state 67 borders solution. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

If it was interesting then why is there no mentions of it anywhere other than this one cite? And that one cite has nothing of relevance to say other than some daft suggestion he's losing his mind. Even it doesn't claim it's interesting. Yes, there are various speculative interpretations that could be put on it. But they cannot be included in the article. Yet without them, it's a non-event. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You are STILL not getting it. The event speaks for itself.Vexorg (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a totally worthless non event and you need pure speculation to make it worth anything. Not beneficial or informative in any way. Off2riorob (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So I guess there's no actually rationale for not including this info then. Speculation isn't needed. Blair entering Jerusalem as his home in a guestbook when he doesn't actually own a physical home means something by default. repeat, no speculation required Calling it a totally worthless and non-event is POV btw and it remains POV even if you say it a thousand times. If there was any reasonable rationale for not including this info then you would have provided it by now instead of trying a spectrum of various reasons, none of which hold any weight and at worse are simply false. In the interest of not encouraging you to edit war ( Off2riorob has only recently been banned for 2 weeks for edit warring in this article ) I shall leave it a while longer before restoring the info. Vexorg (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. Off2riorob (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

non-constructive and immature Attitude of editor Off2riorob noted.Vexorg (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Blair entering Jerusalem as his home in a guestbook when he doesn't actually own a physical home means something by default." No it doesn't. As has been explained countless times; it may have been a mistake, it may have been a lame joke. We don't know. And the cite you have provided doesn't shed any light on the event either.

And I don't follow where you are getting "a spectrum of various reasons". My rational has been constant; Trivial and significance only supported by speculative original research. Rather, it is you who have constantly changed tack; from your original "an insight into the inner mind of Blair", which is entirely speculative, to now the vague "The event speaks for itself".

It is not up to me, or anyone else, to prove it is not significant. It is up to you, the contributing editor, to prove it is significant. You have totally failed to do this.

• You cannot explain the significance without indulging in speculation that it reveals Blair's inner mind.
• Having accepted that inner mind speculation is not acceptable, you're now claiming it's significant because out of all the things Blair did that week, you have decided that he meant something special by this.
• You cannot produce a single other cite other than a very ropey opinion piece that has no insight into the event, other than a cheap jibe that perhaps he's losing his mind.

Also be aware that statements that you are going to ignore the fact there is no consensus for it, and add it anyway, don't help. If you insist on ploughing on with this I suggest you seek some form of Dispute Resolution. Otherwise I don't see us making any progress with this. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you re-read the post by Msrasnw below. Anyway... The rationale of 'Trivial and insignificant' is just POV on your part.

"You cannot explain the significance without indulging in speculation that it reveals Blair's inner mind." - WRONG - the info speaks for itself. My rationale for including this info has NOTHING to do with Original Reserch/Speculation on my part. I have shown this several times now yet you continue ( again ) with this false rationale.Vexorg (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Back pedal all you wish. "The reason I feel this is notable for inclusion in the article is becuase it gives an insight into the inner mind of Blair." These are your exact words. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I still think it is interesting and cited and am not sure why one line on this is viewed as a problem. Including it is just the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia superior. We draw on wider sources than other encylopedias and include all sorts of information. Deleting cited "facts" is problematic. With regards to this Tony argues "After 10 years as British Prime Minister, I decided to choose something easy. I became involved in the Middle East Peace Process." "There is also one blessing. I spend much of my time in the Holy Land and in the Holy City. The other evening I climbed to the top of Notre Dame in Jerusalem. You look left and see the Garden of Gethsemane. You look right and see where the Last Supper was held. Straight ahead lies Golgotha. In the distance is where King David was crowned and still further where Abraham was laid to rest. And of course in the centre of Jerusalem is the Al Aqsa Mosque, where according to the Qur'an, the Prophet was transported to commune with the prophets of the past... Rich in conflict, it is also sublime in history." ([Blair's speech] to the US National Prayer Breakfast) It sounds reasonable and interesting for him, and for us to report him, writing his home as Jeruslem (Msrasnw (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

As a reader of biographical articles in encyclopaedias, I expect that if some fact is mentioned, that it must have some significance...certainly more significance than all the other facts that have been left out. I would also expect to be able to deduce from the context what the significance of the fact actually is, otherwise it tells me nothing of value. In this case, as a reader, I'm left wondering what is significant about this fact and what conclusions I'm supposed to draw from it. As it happens, I've got some background knowledge of Blair and could make a guess at what it means. However, the article should be comprehensible to people who don't have any background knowledge. I don't personally care whether this fact is included or not but, if it is included, I think the editor has a duty to establish the significance, to the satisfaction of other editors, and to make the significance clear to readers. By the way, my own guess is that it was consistent with Blair trying to position himself as an international statesman rather than as 'just' a British polititian ("my home is wherever I am currently working in the world") but this is entirely my own guess. Bluewave (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100% with the above. The problem is that as long as the significance isn't included, from a reliable source, other interpretations can be reach and it can appear that Wikipedia is supportive of them. You only have to do a Google to see what conspiracy sites are making of it. And frankly no-one else is talking about it at all. Including it is undue weight. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm reading this. You're saying that because Wikipedia reported the fact of Blair citing his home as Jerusalem without saying why then Wikipedia could be supporting whatever conclusion any wackjob in the world comes to? I've never heard such a ridiculous and barrel scraping rationale for not including something in an article. Vexorg (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If im following the conversation right i dont think it should be included, unless there are many reliable sources for it and its put into context. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I still like this info. I have moved the stuff about the Faith Initiative/Foundation to the Faith section (From the lead) and linked the Jerusalem home to the speech at Obama's Prayer Breakfast where he goes on about the amount of time he is spending in the Holy Land. Hope is OK (Msrasnw (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

That's fine. It is cited and clear what is meant. Although from the cite it's not clear if he's talking about Jerusalem or Palestine. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I see no rationale can be found for not including the info on Blair citing his home as Jerusalem, and seeing how it's properly sourced info then it'll soon be time include it in the article. Vexorg (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"It" is now included in the Faith section. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

Ahh OK, good, that's a step forward. There never was any rationale for not including this and I'm pleased to see the 'keepers of the article' have now stopped their baseless objections. Although I'm not sure that it is placed in the right section. Even though it's the likely reason, it's pure speculation that Blair cited his home as Jerusalem for 'faith' reasons. Vexorg (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I too am a bit unsure whether it should be under Faith or Middle east. But it has lasted longer there! Also I think having the faith foundation and init in the lead is a bit much and think they might better under faith but perhaps will leave it where it is so as not to annoy the one who added it there.(Msrasnw (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

It should be under "Middle East". The big difference with it as it starts is that it is in a context. Previously it just stood out as a 'so what?' fact that appeared to suggest something was being left unsaid, but hinted at. Could Vexorg also refrain for labelling other editors with sarcastic titles. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is not so clear where it should be (faith and middle east ) and there are views either way. I think the sarcastic tones may be the result of some unconstructive exclusion of properly cited information that to some seemed obviously should be included and others thought obviously should be excluded. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

Well any links with Blair's faith is purely speculative. However there is no speculation with links to the Middle East as there is no doubt the Jerusalem is in the Middle East. On that basis I say it shoudl go in the Middle Eat section where I originally put it. And Escape Orbit's suggestion that when it was in the Middle East section it was "something was being left unsaid, but hinted at" is no basis to exclude this info. Wikipedia doesn't have to explain why somebody did something and every action doesn't have to have an explanation for it to bne included in Wkikipedia.

Msrasnw says it's lasted longer in the faith sectionwhich is true, but I would say the reason for that is that we've now come to a time when those fighting passionately to exclude this info have run out of attempted rationale. And Escape Orbit, if you and Off2riorob act like you own the article then you are going to get labelled as such. You removed properly sourced information without any credible rationale. I refrained from getting embroiled in what would have been an inevitable edit war by restoring it again a second time even though I had the 'properly sourced' rationale on my side. I appreciate that you two have put in lots of work on this article and I appreciate that it's easy to become 'attached' to an article, but it's not good editing to remove properly sourced info just bacuase someone who doesn't participate in this article so much pops in and adds something.Vexorg (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've no interest in debating this with you further. I have explained how, without proper context or explanation, this is a trivial event given unexplained, undue weight, but you appear unable to grasp that. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You are still not getting that the rationale of it being a trivial event is complete subjectivity on your part. I have explained to you that the info has a default significance whether Blair did it for a joke, by mistake or for some other reason. Given that he doesn't' own any 'bricks and mortar' in Jerusalem. Vexorg (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It sits easier in the Middle East section because it is about the Middle East rather that faith. It is a matter of fact that religion has a massive influence and role in The Holy City, you do not have to believe or have faith in any of it to recognise this. So Blair's statements here do not really relate to his personal faith. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree Vexorg (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Faith

Any chance of including Blair expressing worries about being branded a "nutter"?

In an earlier interview with Time magazine, Mr Blair, who is now a peace envoy to the Middle East, said the foundation was "how I want to spend the rest of my life". The vocation is something the former prime minister has been considering for some time. But Mr Blair said while in office he feared being branded a "nutter" if he talked about his religious views. (REF http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7427809.stm BBC News Blair launches faith foundation. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I think this aspect of Blair hiding his faith while in office as PM because he feared it was bad PR, i,e being branded a 'nutter' is a notable part of his career. Including this alongside the inclusion of the infamous Alistair Campbell quote of "We don't do God" would be good for the article IMO Vexorg (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this should go into the article. For a high official to admit to hiding his religious beliefs for fear of being ridiculed is significant in many respects. __meco (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia/BAE Systems

Another notable part of Blair's premiership was the 'stepping above the law' incident when he prevented the Police investifation into corruption between BAE Systems and the Saudi Arabian government regarding the UK's Military-Industrial complex and it's bribes in reagrd to selling military goods to the saudis. I feel this should be included in the article. Probably under 'criticism' as the action was widely condemned. Vexorg (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner

If someone has removed a new addition, with a good reason, please don't just stick it back in if the problem isn't addressed. It is the responsibility of the editor adding the information to cite it adequately, not for other editors to tip-toe around it in the article until it's acceptable. This is particularly the case in biographies of living persons.

What is now there is better, but there is no indication why this particular case, among all the cases Blair was involved in, requires particular mention. Its significance was originally indicated with original synthesis, and even though this has now been removed, it still looks suspiciously like POV cherry picking to make an implied point. Rephrasing doesn't really change this. We need a good reliable source where this case is discussed in relation to Blair in particular. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully it's okay now? Wikidea 13:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

President of Europe?

Although he has not publicly put himself forward for the job, it is widely believed that should he be the favoured choice he would run for the post of president of Europe in the wake of Ireland signing the Lisbon treaty. Only the Czech's and the Polish are yet to sign up for the treaty and are believed to be close to doing so —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammerbench (talk • contribs) 20:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Chiltern Hundreds succession box removed again

I have removed the succession box for Blair's appointment as Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds. It's a procedural device, not a job; a legal fiction of momentary significance, not a post where there is a handover from one officeholder to the next.

This was discussed before, after Blair resigned: see Talk:Tony Blair/Archive 5#Chiltern_Hundreds_succession_box. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

'Signed in blood'

In November 2009 Britain's former U.S. ambassador Sir Christopher Meyer in an interview with the Daily Mail asserted that during a meeting between Tony Blair and George W. Bush at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002 both Blair and Bush signed an agreement to attack Iraq in blood. Meyer qualified his statement by adding that "The two men were alone in the ranch and to this day I'm not entirely clear what degree of convergence [on Iraq policy] was signed in blood, if you like, at the Crawford ranch.<ref>{{Cite news |author= Drury, Ian |title= Blair and a deal signed in blood: PM and Bush had secret plan to topple Saddam, says envoy |url= http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231126/Iraq-inquiry-told-U-S-mentioned-link-Saddam-Hussein-hours-9-11-attacks.html |work= [[The Daily Mail]] |location= London, U.K. |date= November 27, 2009 |accessdate= December 16, 2009}}</ref>

I don't see this issue having been attempted introduced to the article previously, so I have prepared a suggested passus. Now, the Daily Mail is a tabloid, but that shouldn't matter so much as the ambassador is attributed with a direct quote. Also, I haven't researched to the extent that other media outlets have picked up on this thread. I'm also unsure where to put this into the article if a consensus to do so exists. Perhaps as a sub-section to the War on Terror section? Btw., I was also trying to find an article on the custom of signing one's name in blood but we don't seem to have any such yet. __meco (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Predictably biased

Wikipedia as a whole I find struggles to get away from the public mood, and tabloidism and just speak fact. The tone of the article is very negative (to please the tabloid masses I assume), and glosses over the fact that for much of his terms, he was hugely popular, and hugely succesful. I should remind you that the man was leading the tories in the opinion polls even on his last day in power.

I cite your comments about his links with America. He won the congressional medal for his tireless work to unite the world against the threat terrorism. He visted 10 countries in 10 days after 9/11 for talks with leaders.

He's an incredibely popular leader in American for this. Is there any comment on the above. No, just predictable "bush's poodle" jibes taken straight off the front pages of The Daily Mail I imagine.

Not that Blair didn't make errors, but I should remind you that you have a duty to promote fact. Not what the general public want to hear —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.68 (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the above anon should have signed T. Blair. Meowy 19:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And having read through the article, the reality is that its tone is positive to the degree of being a whitewash. Meowy 20:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

An article about how the BBC exploited and manipulated resurgent British post-Cold War nationalism to systematically sully Blair's leadership might be a good idea.

69.171.160.32 (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you joking, anon? Meowy is right - the article's unduly positive. The lead doesn't even mention Iraq!!!! Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason the tone of article seems very negative is because the facts are very negative. The articles on Kim Jong Il and Adolf Hitler seem to paint them in a predictably negative, tabloid light and completely ignore why they were so popular at one time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.118.73 (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Tony Blair is Scottish

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Tony Blair. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sir, You have accused an edit I made of being vandalistic. I merely pointed out on the Tony Blair page that as he was born in Scotland, he is Scottish. Mr. Blair likes to portray himself as English, and his entry on Wikipedia, does not trly indicate that he is by birth Scottish. I do not find my amendment vandalistic, but merely stating the truth. I would be very interested to know what your Editors think.

Ken Ellison Marciac

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KeninMarciac" —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeninMarciac (talk • contribs) 18:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't a member of Wikipedia back in March 2006, so I wouldn't like to judge the standards of the time. However if you had made that edit today,[1] I would call it a test edit that unfortunately landed in the middle of a controversial subject. Certainly not vandalism by today's standards. On the other hand, now that it has been pointed out that the edit was malformed (adding personal comments to the article is not the most constructive way to edit) a repeat of the same edit after a warning could be considered vandalism.

However before you try to make a similar edit again, please read the page at WP:UKNATIONALS, which tries to give guidance on how to treat the often heated subject of UK nationality. You may also find the Archive of this talk page from early 2006 an interesting read. Road Wizard (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that it is not Wikipedia's place to correct someone on what their nationality is. As you say; Blair "pretends" he is English. His parents are English. He has lived most of his life in England, including a sizeable part of his childhood. His self-identification as English is therefore perfectly logical and it's not any Wikipedia editor's right to decide he's wrong. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Ken Ellison Marciac here to complain about a user page comment he got three and a half years ago? If so, his post is off-topic for this page and should be removed. And ... wow - he makes only three edits in almost 4 years, and two of them are to complain about the response he got to his first edit! Meowy 20:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought his mother was Irish. That would make him of half Irish heritage.

69.171.160.32 (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

On 1 October "John" has removed Blair from the categories "Scottish Roman Catholics" and "Scottish Episcopalians" on the ground that Blair is "not generally considered to be Scottish", despite PoB. Indeed, I would never have picked Blair as other than English - except, which is important, for his Calvinistic fervour. Let's put him back into those categories, which do not exclude other categorisations. Perhaps he should be counted as Irish too.Wikiain (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Still not received a knighthood

Little bit off-topic and not to be meant to be put in the article: It is common that every former prime minister gets a knighthood, especially when he retires from his political career. So, how is it possible that Tony Blair still isn't yet knighted by the queen? To my knowledge this is very strange and uncommon. Does somebody have an explanation for this? Demophon (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The norm seems to be either going to the Lords or getting a KG. Looking at our articles, Major didn't get his KG until 2005 and Heath got his only in 1992. The order is limited to 24 members so it might be purely a matter of waiting for a space to appear. This is assuming thta Blair has been offered and refused the Lords.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a vacancy at a Order of the Garter for more than some time now. But Blair still isn't offered a knighthood (which would be a KG) and this is indeed strange. Also, there was a vacancy in the Scottish Order of the Thistle till 2009, but he wasn't made a KT then. Instead this honour passed to The Lord Patel. So there were a lot of opportunities and spaces to appear for Blair. Or he refused a knighthood, or the Queen is not pleased with the former prime minister and systematically ignores him for a honour. I think the latter, because he also isn't made a Companion of Honour or a member of the Order of Merit, which are sometimes a sort of "reserve honour for the time being". This was the case with Margaret Thatcher and John Major before they could be offered a peerage or a knighthood in the Garter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.40.7 (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The supposition that the Queen hasn't awarded it because she's peeved with him is fairly silly. The most likely explanation is that he has avoided any peerage, just as he avoided a resignation honours list, because of the Cash for Honours scandal. The next most likely is that he is still more or less in politics because he is the representative of the Quartet in the Middle East. The third most likely is that he does not want to close the door completely on re-entering active politics, and sees taking a KG as subtly reducing the likelihood. The chance that the lack of an award is the result of the Queen's person animus is about as low as its being the result of her corgis eating the paperwork. -Rrius (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is still strange. That Tony Blair doesn't want to have a peerage title I can imagine because this will indeed close the door completely on re-entering some parts in politics (for example the Lower house). But a KG does not reduce the likelihood, a lot a former prime ministers did receive a knighthood, but they still had an active political career afterwards. But Blair even didn't receive - what is described as above, a "reserve honour", like the CH or OM. Strange... Diodecimus (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, Tony Blair is also not mentioned in the 2010 Dissolution Honours of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. That makes you go think… ;-) Diodecimus (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Blair is not interested in the traditional knighthood or peerage bestowed on former prime ministers and does not want such a honour. I have put this in the text. Diodecimus (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Music section

People have removed a section that I added about songs written specifically about Blair saying "an unknown song by a relative nobody harly qualifies as notable" and "it's pointless trivia. Just because someone writes a song about Blair doesn't mean it has any significance to Blair". I'd like to discuss this further as I don't agree with these arguments. If they were the case then surely the same would apply to the fact that he appeared in a Simpsons episode and one episode of another TV program? In response to the first point regarding notability, both songs were mentioned by reliable sources - this and this for Chumbawamba and this for Life (rapper). Information doesn't have to be notable for inclusion, only verifiable which this is. Considering he was PM for the best part of a decade it is not relevant to see how he was portrayed by song writers? Indeed is it possible to write a truly encyclopedic article without including this? It doesn't really seem like trivia either since it is not "lists of miscellaneous information" - (WP:TRIVIA). Can anyone provide a sound argument as to why this shouldn't be included? Smartse (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings about the issue, but your argument is somewhat flawed. His appearance in a TV programme is a fact about him and his actions; his mention in a song written by someone else is a statement on the perception of the songwriter. If he was involved in creating the song then some comparison between the two would be valid.

A more realistic comparison would be between a song about him and a TV drama involving a character based on him (but without his actual involvement). Road Wizard (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is trivia mixed with original research to pick odd songs you happen to know mention Tony Bleurgh. It would be encyclopedic to reference a well respected academic who had written a paper for a peer-reviewed journal surveying how Blair was portrayed in the media from when he first entered public attention as a shadow minister to after he resigned as PM and to pick out those works which that academic had indentified as most significant.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is also undue weight. From the article it is quite clear that Blair was a very notable person during the last decade. So it is likely that very many people had opinions on him. So what is so remarkable about these particular musicians' opinion that it deserves inclusion? Do we include comedians' material? I'm sure we could find reliable cites for hundreds of mentions in stand-up routines. Or do only song-writers get special consideration because they put their opinion to a tune?

We also need to consider what this section actually contributes to an already lengthy article. What does the reader get from it being there? Very little, as the reader is not reliant on any of it to understand how Blair was regarded by some. There is plenty of factual cited material in the article to establish this. without adding trivial clutter about what Chumbawamba thought.

Comparisons with a Simpsons episode isn't a true comparison, as that was something that Blair actually did himself. His own actions allow the reader to understand something of the man. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Name spelled wrong

Probably on purpose, should be changed to Blair from Bliar, but I can't because of semiprotected.

Jim0101 (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Vandalism fixed, thanks —Jeremy (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

POV TAGGED. Iraq isn't even mentioned in the lead!!

In fact the lead mentions almost no criticism, despite the fact he's one of the most unpopular and controversial former leaders in history.

This article is not too unbalanced, but the lead is biased beyond belief. The lead is the only part that many readers will read.

There's no point trying to change it - I've done that before, and it will just get changed back.

How sad that this man who destroyed Britain's reputation is venerated on wikipedia. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

POV? please feel free to discuss your issues ... Off2riorob (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw the POV tag on the article and was looking for the associated discussion on the talk page....is this it? Bluewave (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Main issues:

• The lead. This is the part that most readers see, so it needs to be a balanced summary of the most important aspects about Blair. Sadly, it doesn't do this at the moment. It has been better in the past. It needs to mention the Iraq war and the controversy around it for a start. It needs to have a paragraph of criticisms to match the paragraph which lists his achievements.
• The rest of the article actually does contain some criticism, but none of it is represented in the lead. In other words, the lead misrepresents the article.
• Much more mention should be made that he has been been accused (nothing proven) of war crimes. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3524133.stm) After all, it's rare for any leader to be accused of such a serious offence, so it's notable. It's mentioned once in the article I think, but in my opinion it should have its own section.

We need to get a lead agreed on the talk page that people then do not change without agreement. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

For example, back in March 2009 this was in the lead:

However, with a reduced majority after winning a historic third term in the 2005 general election, increasing popular opposition to the Iraq war, frequent back-bench rebellions, the Cash for Honours scandal, a case of fraud involving a multi-billion pound arms deal with Saudi Arabia, and low approval ratings, pressure built up within the Labour party for Blair to resign. Blair stood down as prime minister on 27 June 2007, and was replaced by Gordon Brown. He has been teaching a course at Yale University regarding faith and globalization for the 2008-2009 academic year.

This would be a start for a critical paragraph now.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This page may also help: Criticism of Tony Blair.

I don't think it is rare at all for a leader to be accused of "war crimes". Accusation like that are quite common. However, what is really notable is actual convictions. Otherwise ever BLP of practically every significant politician would require paragraphs concerning the opinions of people who didn't like them.

The problem about the above quoted extract from March 2009 is it combined issues to suggest that they resulted in Blair's departure. I don't think any of the actual cites said this, and if any did it can only be opinion. The lead should really stick to undisputed fact.

However, there is a need for the Iraq War, and issues revolving around it, to summarised be in the lead. Far more so than the paragraph about his post-PM life. I would support addition of a suitably neutral and factual summary. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If that is the problem, then perhaps this is a solution:

“ At the 2005 general election Labour won a historic third term, but with a reduced majority after winning. After a period of increasing pressure to do so, Blair stood down as prime minister on 27 June 2007, and was replaced by Gordon Brown. In the run-up to his resignation, Blair suffered from low approval ratings, frequent backbench rebellions, increasing popular opposition to the Iraq war, and distracting headlines related to the Cash for Honours scandal and a case of fraud involving a multi-billion pound arms deal between BAE Systems and Saudi Arabia. He has been teaching a course at Yale University regarding faith and globalization for the 2008-2009 academic year. ”

Respectfully submitted, -Rrius (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of that isn't necessarily true ("frequent" backbench rebellions? increasing popular opposition to Iraq?), and the rest isn't obviously important enough to mention in the lead, except the Yale teaching. It also gives the impression that these issues in some way caused the resignation. Instead of proposing text, let's talk about what should be mentioned in the lead which currently isn't. This section started with "Iraq isn't mentioned" - well now it is. What else is important and left out? I'd put PFI way ahead of cash for honours for instance. IsambardBrunel (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this thread started by saying the lead is not balanced as exemplified by the lack of a mention of Iraq. That does not mean that nothing else should have been mentioned. It is simply true that opposition to the Iraq war increase during the last part of Blair's premiership, and it is supported by references. (I removed the references that had been in the old version because there generally shouldn't be any in the lead and because, practically, it is easier to work with the text that way.) Cash for Honours certain belongs in the lead as it was a long investigation that actually saw a sitting PM interviewed by the police and took up a lot of ink in the press an in Hansard for what, two years? -Rrius (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

But how important can Cash for Honours be if it's not even mentioned in the article body? (It isn't, at the moment.) Maybe the body needs improving; especially for the Premiership it seems very bitty and not reflecting properly the linked article Premiership of Tony Blair (which itself only has a couple of lines about Cash for Honours). IsambardBrunel (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree the lead leaves a lot to be desired. For example, I was surprised to to see the following sentence "Unexpected moves included handing over control of interest rates to the Bank of England, and the introduction of university tuition fees" without so much as a mention that the reason for that tuition fees were a surprise is because he ran on a manifesto that explicitly stated no university tuition fees. I would have thought that was the significant portion.

I'm not sure there was an explicit rejection of tuition fees in the manifesto. I'm looking now and see "Higher education: The improvement and expansion needed cannot be funded out of general taxation. Our proposals for funding have been made to the Dearing Committee, in line with successful policies abroad. The costs of student maintenance should be repaid by graduates on an income-related basis, from the career success to which higher education has contributed. The current system is badly administered and payback periods are too short. We will provide efficient administration, with fairness ensured by longer payback periods where required."[2] IsambardBrunel (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That goes back to Jandrew23's long-standing NPOV problems with this article. Cash for Honours was a big deal, and it should be dealt with here. -Rrius (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Cash for honors is the way it has worked since time immemorial and there is a cross party consensus for that. It will be almost impossible to get agreement here as so many different people hold strong views about him, one wants cash for honors another wants the war, war again is a normal part of history, this is one of the most successful labour leaders in history, there should be more praise in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion seems biased, personal and generally unsuitable for here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.238.23 (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

tagged again

The idea of tags is to improve the article, if it i not improved then the template should not sit there for ever, it is being added and the additioned should come and work on the issues, if not then after a few days the template should be removed and not replaced. Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well if all the BLP Unref tags had been removed after a dew days it might have made life simpler. But I do think your claim is novel to say the least.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it would have helped that situation, it is easy to add a template but far harder to do the stuff to bring the article to good status, ...easy is good? Another of my ideas is just to have two articles, one written exclusively by people that like the subject and another one written by people that don't like them, when I comment this I was at my wits end with tagging. It is just that tags are added and sit there for weeks and the tagging is in many case not beneficial to the article at all, Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Come on guys, we can do better!

Is there any chance we could work together and turn this mess into something approximating an encyclopaedic article? some us need to be careful as regards maintaining neutrality. Although there's plenty to choose from, I nominate this as the most unencyclopaedic statement in the article: “Campbell acquired a reputation as a sinister and Machiavellian figure, and both Blair and Campbell have frequently been criticised or satirised for their allegedly excessive use of spin and news management techniques.” --Marc Connolly (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Good nomination, removed. Off2riorob (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not able to edit the article myself yet! Besides, there's so much wrong with this article I wouldn't know where to start. Take this fairly typical sentence from the Relationship with the Media section:

"Tony Blair's close relationship with Rupert Murdoch, and the reciprocated unprecedented support which he received from Murdoch's globally influential News Corporation media empire, has been the subject of much criticism"

The phrase "close relationship" is an opinion, not a fact. It suggests they were regular drinking buddies or something, when in reality Murdoch simply appreciated Blair's stance on Iraq! And is it really "unprecedented" for someone with influence in the media to lend support to one political party or another?? Also, the phrases "globally influential" and "media empire" are heavily loaded terms: If you want to discuss the extent of the influence wielded by Rubert Murdoch, you're on the wrong page. And as for "much criticism," yuk! Granted, the editor making the assertion cites two newspaper articles in support of the "much criticism" claim. But these articles are both in relation to just one incident that took place in July 2006. (TB was PM for over a decade, so it's important to put a week of bad headlines in perspective.) Indeed, even within these articles, I don't see "much" criticism directed at Tony Blair. The Guardian article even implies that TB made the right decision in agreeing to speak at the NewsCorp conference; for if he had not done so, the invitation "would have gone to David Cameron".

Anyway, this is just one sentence. And it's not even the most outrageous one I've come across in this article. We really need to sort this page out! ;) With so many people working on the page, it's hard to believe the amount of lazy additons going unchallanged --Marc Connolly (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well expressed Mark, can you not edit the article yourself yet? Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, mostly editors have moved on tony is history so to speak, additions are inserted without much inspection, that claim was excessive and linked to a couple of opininated editorials, I have taken the floral tag ons out and removed one of the op eds.Off2riorob (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we have sections dedicated solely to either to Praise or Criticisms?

The editors in a few other articles dealing with political figures,e.g. George Bush and barack obama have come to the conlusion that a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises. For example, check out the FAQ on the discusion page of the Talk:Barack Obama article. They beleve that a section dedicated solely to praises or criticism is an indication of a poorly written article, and that criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article. Does anyone agree with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcconnolly (talk • contribs) 18:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC) --Marc Connolly (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to illustrate what I mean; the first sentence of the criticisms section currently reads:

"Blair was criticised, including by former members of his own cabinet, for his solid stance alongside U.S. President George W. Bush on Middle East policy, in particular over the Iraq War, the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

Would it not be just as accurate to have another section called "Praise" in which we point out that, "Blair was PRAISED, including by former members of his own cabinet, for his solid stance alongside U.S. President George W. Bush on Middle East policy, etc."

Surely, given that this is an encyclopedia, the best thing would be simply to state that TB had a solid stance alongside Bush in relation to some aspects of foreign poicy and let the readers themselves decide whether such action was praiseworthy or otherwise?--Marc Connolly (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It is generally considered better to merge material into one section that reflects the range and balance of opinion in reliable sources. This avoids the creation of internal content forks with one-sided praise dominating most of an article and one-sided criticism in its own little ghetto. Of course, Blair was active so recently that most sources will be clouded by bias in one way or another. In Mother Teresa we have tried producing a reception section with separate sections reflecting views in her adoptive homeland and in the rest of the world. We have also tried to blend some assessmentinto the other sections. Of course, that does not stop various people turning up and complaining that there is no criticism. Is suspect that there are more activehaters of Blair around than of MT, so the melding of the presentation of pro- and anti- views in line with good practice won't be without some drawbacks.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a separate section at this point. The criticisms should be merged into the premiership article and summarized in the "Prime Minister" section. -Rrius (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Two separate sections would polarise the article rather than get closer to the neutrality it should be aiming for. It would also inevitably become a list of grievances and achievements. I think it would definitely make the article worse. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies Alister, Peter and Rrius. I was only half joking when I suggested a section dedicated solely to praise! Wikipedia's Biography of living persons policy says that:

::"[c]riticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."

Hopefully the criticism section and the Criticism of Tony Blair page prove to be only temporary, as they become incorporated in a non-contentious way either into the main body of the Tony Blair article, or into a more relevent sub-article. --Marc Connolly (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think you were being serious. I was saying the criticism section and page should be incorporated into the appropriate sections and forks. -Rrius (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

One new law a day

This addition is presented as if fact a bit bare and unexplained and cited to an opinionated editorial...

Blair's government passed one new law for every day in power http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/new-labour-new-britain-taking-liberties-with-our-liberties-445825.html

imo the edit is poorer than what was there previously and it adds only mystery and unexplained comment. What kind of laws are they, minor or major? Is this comparable to previous governments? Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Might be nice if there was discussion before deletion? The Independent is a national newspaper not a book. I think "increased legislation" is without meaning, that's why i found a referenced fact and put it in its place. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally see nothing wrong in removing new content that is disputed while discussion continues...the original edit is also not very good

• Blair increased legislation and increased police powers by adding to the number of arrestable offences, compulsory DNA recording and the use of dispersal orders. "Blair's new look civil liberties"

from the citation...Like the former Tory leader (Mrs Thatcher), Mr Blair also believed an unreformed police service incapable of delivering his crime reduction programme and went even further than her in giving the police more powers - to arrest, to drug and DNA test, to issue dispersal orders - at the expense of individual liberties.

here are a couple of views from the citation from both sides of the field that could be included....

The police service is divided over the Blair legacy. One view, reflected by his namesake, Sir Ian Blair, is that he got the balance broadly right, with a twin-track strategy of creating a new national force to tackle serious organised crime while focusing local policing on neighbourhood units.

But the former chief constable of Gloucestershire Tony Butler argues that the Blair era entrenched the power of Whitehall over the freedom of chief constables.

I can't understand the point you're making, possibly due to a lack of quotation marks or bad formatting. You didn't remove new content you undid a reversion made by a contributor unconnected with the original edit, which seems arbitrary, against consensus and likely to incite an edit war. Nonetheless, I've tried to reflect what I think your point is in restoring the reference. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I actually support the edit that started this, which was a small edit from Marcconnelly that simply removed the comment (blair increased legislation) from the comment

with a very correct edit summary of.. Tony Blair didnt increase legislation, Parliament did. In any case, it's expected that the amount of legislation will increase with time

Blair increased police powers by adding to the number of arrestable offences, compulsory DNA recording and the use of dispersal orders."Blair's new look civil liberties" Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The amount of new legislation is noteworthy because it was commented on widely. It's not necessarily a criticism but to suggest parliament was acting independent of the will of Blair's New Labour project doesn't seem to be a credible position to me. The party over which Blair presided dramatically escalated the quantity of new law.Alistair Stevenson (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Alistair is now inserting this opinionated poor addition and again replacing the op ed citation...

Blair's government produced an unusually large amount of legislation, passing one new law for every day in power and it increased police powers by adding to the number of arrestable offences, introducing compulsory DNA recording and increasing the use of dispersal orders.

Alistair, please use discussion, your new desired addition is even worse and more opinionated that your first edit. Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The original edit (that was allowed to stand) was "Blair increased legislation". This seems inaccurate and badly expressed, so I added specificity by inserting the one law a day reference. By adding further specificity the section becomes unbalanced I think, but it would certainly be possible to add hard neutral data such as that whereas there was one criminal justice Bill per decade for much of the 20th century, The Home Office in the Blair years produced 60 bills in a nine year period Alistair Stevenson (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Another opinionated editorial, please...we are here to report the reality as far as we can for people such as school children to learn from, please consider the bigger picture. How many did they remove from the statute books? Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I support the original edit completely and would like to see it reinserted , it was a good intelligent npov edit.

• • edit summary of.. Tony Blair didnt increase legislation, Parliament did. In any case, it's expected that the amount of legislation will increase with time

Blair increased police powers by adding to the number of arrestable offences, compulsory DNA recording and the use of dispersal orders."Blair's new look civil liberties" Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll allow that it was Blair that increased police powers but when it comes to the widely commented on increase in the number of laws, that's parliament's doing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistair Stevenson (talk • contribs) 23:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for marking my edit as minor when, in retrospect, I can see that it is contentious. It is clear the rate at which legislation was introduced increased under TB. Indeed, it increased 20% when compared to the 10 years prior to 1997. If we are going to mention this fact then I recommend we use that source from Sweet and Maxwell, as it more objective than the earlier-cited article entitled "Blair's Frenzied Law Making").

The reason I do not consider this fact notable is that the rate of new laws always increases in times of economic well-being. For example, if you check out this Telegraph article, it says:

"After the 1980 recession which saw Gross Domestic Product fell by 2.1 per cent, there was a 46 per cent increase in the number of new laws." Given that this 46% increase in the volume of new legislation is not mentioned on Margaret Thatcher's page, it is probably not noteworthy that TB's time in office resulted in only a 20% increase. --Marc Connolly (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether legislation increases over time is beside the point. The amount of government legislation introduced and passed under Blair's governance was significantly increased from prior years. Whether any similar increase is noted at Margaret Thatcher is irrelevant. Blair and New Labour have been consistently criticised for enacting legislation to be seen to be doing something rather than addressing the actual problems they're legislating about. What's more, the increase in legislation has been noted by MPs on all sides of the house as a reason scrutinising legislation is more difficult than it used to be. The fact that there may be an explanation that has little to Blair does not make it not notable. What's more, trying to base notability on the difference between the increase in 1980 to 1990 and 1997 to 2007 is nonsensical; there are too many things we just don't know about those numbers. I agree that a better source should be used if one is available. -Rrius (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, we'll see what the other editors make of your argument. My main problem was that this was included in the "Criticism" section. Now that it has been moved to the "Policy" section I am not entirely unhappy with citing this report <http://www.sweetandmaxwell.thomson.com/about-us/press-releases/010607.pdf> in support of the assertion that "Under Blair, the rate at which new legislation was introduced increased." However, I still maintain that the notability of this fact is questionable, given that the evidence suggests that the rate of new legislation would have increased regardless of who was in charge.

And as for your belief that TB supported laws simply so that he would be "seen to be doing something..." --I just hope you don't intend to write something like that in the main article! --Marc Connolly (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd welcome the new reference as evidence of an increase in new laws, and the original reference used as a basis for stating that the increase attracted criticism. Would there be consensus for saying

"Under Blair's government the amount of new legislation increased<http://www.sweetandmaxwell.thomson.com/about-us/press-releases/010607.pdf> which attracted criticism. Blair increased police powers by adding to the number of arrestable offences, compulsory DNA recording and the use of dispersal orders."Blair's new look civil liberties"Alistair Stevenson (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm still unhappy to the extent that we seem to be focusing only on those policies that were contentious (see my comment in the below discussion regarding the removed citation). Some editors have a very selective memory. However, to be honest, your ammended comment about increased legislation is probably no less noteworthy than much of what has been said about Blair in this article :( --Marc Connolly (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Time's passed, if there's no strong feelings either way I will insert the form of words suggested above. This will finally clarify the meaningless phrase "Under Blair legislation increased."Alistair Stevenson (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Citation removed

Without making any comment on whatever dispute is going on here, Marcconnolly has twice removed a reference he did not like and replaced it with a "citation needed" tag. What is the point of that? I think the Guardian should be quite a solid source for that, am I missing something? --John (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleting (and re-deleting) content without discussion or an attempt to improve it is destructive and aggressive. Opinion-based articles in a newspaper of record are perfectly credible as source material for matters of fact. However, the reference doesn't support the assertions made in the article. With Monbiot's piece as our source we say, " He introduced substantial market-based reforms in the education and health sectors; introduced student tuition fees; sought to reduce certain categories of welfare payments, and introduced tough anti-terrorism and identity card legislation." But Monbiot doesn't mention student tuition fees, welfare payments, anti-terrorism or identity card legislation. I agree the reference should go. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to control my destructive and aggressive tendencies in future! As a new user, I didn't realise that opinion pieces are acceptable. However, with or without citation, I still do not think that the sentence is satisfactory. Let's look at it again:

"He introduced substantial market-based reforms in the education and health sectors; introduced student tuition fees; sought to reduce certain categories of welfare payments, and introduced tough anti-terrorism and identity card legislation"

The next sentence, (which we are discussing above) contines: "Blair increased legislation and increased police powers by adding to the number of arrestable offences, compulsory DNA recording and the use of dispersal orders"'

In listing the policies of TB's government, we seem to be focusing only on thoses that were contentious at the time. Why for example do we mention that he re-introduced university fees, but fail to mention that he introduced free nursery education for 3 and 4 year olds?? Are the only noteworthy policies the contentious ones!? What about the other things mentioned in Monbiot's article? Things like the introduction of Sure Start children's centres to help children from low income households; reductions in child poverty; record number of students in higher education; raising the school leaving age and increasing the national minimum wage; flexible hours for parents and carers; better conditions for part-time workers; the decent homes programme; free museums; more foreign aid; GiftAid; free local bus travel for those over 60s; hospital operation waiting-times halved. I could go on. Why are these facts not mentioned? On what basis do we select what policies get a mention in this article? I realise these things do not fit your narrative that "TB was a bad egg and was highly devisive", but its the reason people continued to re-elect his party. --Marc Connolly (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Environmental Record

The first two sentences of the Environmental record section require references if they are to remain. The fourth sentence is like something from a Daily Mail editorial. The fifth sentence reads as follows:
“Tony Blair and his party have promised a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide but during his term the emissions rose.”
I have added a reference to support the 20% claim, but I cannot find evidence to support the assertion that emissions rose during TB’s term. (In fact, according to one source I came across, UK greenhouse gas emissions decreased 15% since 1990: http://www.goodentrepreneur.com/Knowledge/Features/United-Kingdom-Climate-Change-Profile-Part-1-A-New-Industrial-Revolution). However, my main concern with the section is that it makes an implied accusation of hypocrisy on the part of Blair. --Marc Connolly (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Place naming policy

There is a very clear policy on UK place names at WP:UKPLACE It states:

• In England, disambiguated place names should go under placename, ceremonial county. Where this is inappropriate placename, Town/City
• In Wales, disambiguated place names should go under placename, principal area. Thus Queensferry, Flintshire, not Queensferry, Wales

-*Where possible, articles on places in Scotland should go under placename. Thus Glasgow, not Glasgow, Scotland. Where the settlement is significant and disambiguation is needed, articles should generally go under placename, Scotland. Thus Perth, Scotland, not Perth, Perth and Kinross.

I was made aware of this towards the end of a debate on one page and it seemed to me to settle the issue so I tidied up the modern UK Prime Ministers to conform with it. I'm nor really surprised that Irvine22 went on a revert spree, he has a pattern of disruptive editing (see here) and a recording of picking up a minor theme and running it over many pages (for example labeling any Irishperson born in England as English, even a Provisional IRA commander). More recently he has move this campaign to the Welsh from the Irish including edit warring on my own article on Wikipedia. His pattern of editing is to push to the limits of tolerance with the community, then back off with either an enforced or a voluntary withdrawal from editing for a period before he returns to start all over again.

I will also post a notice at th talk page of WP:UKPLACE but pending a change of policy agreed by the community at that location Irvine22's recent edits should be reverted. --Snowded ^TALK 07:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The current edit certainly sounds weird. Regardless of any previous edit wars or policy, I'd support reverting it. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mavvers89, 15 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

I think it should be noted that Tony Blair did not express regret during the Iraq inquiry even when prompted to do so, which was followed by shouts of uproar from a heckler. There should also be some mention of the interview with Fern Cotton where he seemed to point out that he would've invaded iraq even if there weren't WMD. Also, this doesn't make sense in the Chilcot Inquiry section: "Blair told the inquiry making a covert deal to invade Iraq." Perhaps it could be replaced with Blair denied making a covert deal? The whole article seems fairly one-sided and as a factual website I believe there needs to be a more neutral point of view, not glorifying Blair. Thanks, Tom

Mavvers89 (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SpigotMap 16:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Tom had a good point about that section needing an edit, it was a mess. I've added the Fern Britton interview but the response of the gallery to Blair's evidence seems non-notable to me. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Foreign policy

Is there any particular reason why there is no mention of Sierra Leone or Kosovo? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Order of the Thistle Synthesis

I have removed the cited information on this about the Queen appointing people to the Order of the Thistle. This is because it was original synthesis, i.e. original research by combining information from more than one source to reach a conclusion not in either of the sources (A+B therefore C).

• it was reported that Blair would be offered the Order Of The Thistle (cited fact A)
• The Queen recently appointed two other people to this Order (cited fact B)
• this Order has limited openings, (uncited fact)
• therefore, by implication, Blair will not be appointed (uncited original synthesis C)

Original Research is not permissible on Wikipedia. Unless a reliable source can be found that makes a connection between the recent appointments and Blair, and reaches the same conclusion, then we cannot add it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

But apart from the OR aspect, even before these two other people were appointed, Blair had made it perfectly clear that he does not want a knighthood or a peerage. Therefore, the details of who were appointed to the Order of the Thistle or any other order are completely irrelevant and immaterial to Tony Blair or his article. He said he did not want one, and he was not offered one. The end. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Brown archiving

Excuse me for being a little confused here, but why is this page configured to archive discussions to the Gordon Brown talk archive? TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A Journey

Hi. I've listed the article for peer review and was wondering if anybody would like to comment on it. Also, if anybody is able to add to the article or upload an image that would be cool. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Citizen's arrest attempts

I think all three attempts should be mentioned. In fact, there should be possibly a separate subsection. Here are links to the other two attempts earlier this year:

• Sky News
• Independent
• Telegraph
• Daily Mail
• The Guardian
• Irish Times

Thanks. 220.100.115.244 (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. It's very understated in the article, but I think there is enough material and relevance for a couple more sentences. Thanks. 220.100.18.172 (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this should be mentioned somewhere. I previously added it to Criticism of Tony Blair but was reverted (See this discussion). It looks like things have changed since then as attempts have actually been made and been documented. Smartse (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Career as a barrister

He practised as a barrister before entering parliament but this is not included in any detail. Would anybody be able to contribute?Skreen (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Youngest Prime Minister since 1812

The introduction should mention that David Cameron has since surpassed Blair's record as the youngest Prime Minister since 1812. (92.3.241.14 (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC))

The introduction should summarise the rest of the article and avoid excessive detail. Surely the salient point here is that when he was elected Prime Minister he was the youngest PM since 1812? Stuff that happened after he ceased to be PM doesn't seem remotely relevant to him becoming PM. TFOWR 15:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The introduction suggests that he is still the youngest Prime Minister since 1812, when in reality he is not. (92.3.241.14 (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC))

No. The introduction says: "At 43 years old, he became the youngest Prime Minister since 1812". Nothing at all about him remaining the youngest PM since 1812, only a mention of what happened when he was 43 and became PM. TFOWR 15:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It should say at the time of his appointment he was the youngest Prime Minister since 1812. (92.3.241.14 (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC))

Why? Do you feel the current wording is incorrect (hint: it's not)? Or do you feel there's a danger that readers will believe that Blair will remain forever and ever the youngest PM since 1812 (hint: they won't)? This strikes me as very familiar POV-pushing here. TFOWR 15:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It is POV unless it mentions that he is no longer the youngest Prime Minister since 1812. (92.3.241.14 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC))

The neutral point-of-view noticeboard is thataway. Obviously, I disagree with you and think that you're pushing a WP:POV, but I don't intend to argue with a sock puppet. Take it up at the NPOV noticeboard, and see whether anyone agrees with you. TFOWR 16:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)