Talk:Tony Blair/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Predecessors vs predecessor

Why does the summary box refer to “predecessors“ and “successors“ and then refer to one person for each. It should say predecessor and successor. This does not just apply to this article, but if it’s a deliberate style it makes no sense. -Chris

• The only logical answer to that question is if we have two Prime Ministers serving alongside each other at the same time, which obviously is totally illogical. I think it's perhaps just a standard box that was used and nobody has bothered to change it. Should it be removed? Deskana (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I've changed the template so it says "Precessor(s)" and "Successor(s)". The problem comes when you have someone like Harold Wilson who served non-continuous terms as PM - he had two successors and two predecessors. David | Talk 20:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • Ah right, didn't think of that. I only checked to the Margaret Thatcher page and she's in the same boat as Blair. Predecessor(s)/Successor(s) works well enough. -Chris

NPOV (overwhelming public opposition) ?

I'd like to query the statement in the 3rd paragraph 'Despite overwhelming public opposition, he supported ... the 2003 invasion of Iraq'. My recollection of opinion polls at the time is that the public were fairly evenly split. This sentence reads so much like anti Iraq invasion point of view that it needs tightening up with references and figures. PeterGrecian 12:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it wasn't "overwhelming" public opposition. The public was, on balance, opposed and much of the media comment was critical so it is legitimate to point out that Blair took a decision which went against the perceived views of the majority, but there has never been a shortage of people who supported his stance whereas this sentence implies that he was one of the few people in the country to support the invasion of Iraq. Let's just get rid of "overwhelming" and leave it at that. David | Talk 12:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that works better. I've tried 'Despite public protestation' which sticks to the facts: there were protests. If we state what the majority view was (rather than a perception) we should back it up. PeterGrecian 12:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm happy with that, other than changing the strangulated English of "protestations" to "protests". (Although the opinion polls at the time showed a brief majority in support of the invasion shortly after the fall of Baghdad) David | Talk 12:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool, it's been good collaborating with you. PeterGrecian 12:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

a practical difference between a protestations and protest. I don't agree with protests being the default word these days.[1]33crackle 09:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

An independent reviewer form The Independent newspaper says that this article is not NPOV as it is 'opinionated and written from an anti-war point of view'. May I suggest that the phrase 'invasion of Iraq' is replaced with Iraq War. 'Invasion' is not NPOV. When I changed this though the anti-war brigade changed it back.

I'm not particularly anti-war, but it was an invasion! How else would you describe it? (Please don't say liberation, I might cry... :P ) Help plz

Indeed. Even the Normandy Landings are sometimes referred to as an 'invasion', despite their ultimate goal of removing German forces from French soil, and then going home. 'Invasion', despite its connotations, essentially remains a descriptive term for a form of military operation, not a comment on the reasons for it.

I agree. War is terribly vague and carries negative connotations. Invasion clearly means an act of invading which is defined as entering somewhere forcefully (or with the threat of force), or as if to take possession. No one can deny that was what happened given that deadly force was actually used numerously and possession was taken of the country for some time. Also, there have been non-invasive wars in Iraq (e.g.: civil wars).

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib}

NPOV (Placement of resignation announcement) ?

Why is this

"On 7 September 2006 he confirmed he would step down as Prime Minister before the 2007 Labour Party Conference, but stopped short of stating a precise date for his departure.[1]"

in the opening paragraph? It has very little in the way of informational value (no firm date) and that opening paragraph doesn't even mention when he was installed so it is a bit out of context.

-Because this is one of the most important themes about his current political status.

Degree

What kind of degree did he get? First, 2:1? ZephyrAnycon 22:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

A second class degree. Oxford did not divide its seconds at the time. See John Rentoul's biography at page 52. David | Talk 23:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

it did divide them, I got an upper, tis on my degree certificate chum! Why are you so intent on distorting this man's abilities?

When did you get your degree? My recollection is back then that they did not seperate them either (leading to many Yes Minister jokes on the matter. Help plz

Perhaps I could add my experience here (as an Oxford graduate a few years after Blair). Oxford does now divide the second class into upper and lower, but this didn't happen until after Blair's time, as I know because my own degree in 1981, quite a bit after Blair, was an undivided 'second class'. I actually had to get my detailed exam marks from my tutors to establish it was of 'upper second equivalence' in order to qualify for a research studentship, so I am unlikely to have forgotten this! I think the second class started to be separated some time in the late eighties or early nineties, though am not sure of the exact date. DoctorMartin 01:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Small Edit

The link to the area of Dulwich is linked to the London borough but it is the area in Australia that Tony Blair stayed in. I am going to change that right now. BlueKangaroo.

AfD/Vandalism

The AfD is obvious vandalism. The nonsense at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Blair is further evidence of this. --Jwinters | Talk 19:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, the user vandalised my talk page after I put a keep comment on the AfD[2]--Jwinters | Talk 19:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It's an obvious bad faith nomination and I have removed it. David | Talk 20:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms by the left

This section seems very POV (even after I edited it heavily). Why only criticisms by the left. They are a small minority of the political spectrum. To label policies such as the minnimum wage as progressive is pure POV, can we please ensure we don't engage in such blatant politicising. I also thought Meyer's statement that Blair could have used his influence with the US (to do what exactly the article didn't try to tell us) to be a piece of original research that is in no way notable enought to be in an encyclopedia article, SqueakBox 20:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The left are not a small minority if the political spectrum. Presumably for you to make such a comment you are from the US. The Labour Party is a left wing party and Tony Blair is its leader. Criticism from the left, which he is supposed to represent, therefore seems extremely relevant.

The minimum wage is clearly and demonstrably progressive in the economic sense, eg: 'progressive taxation'. --Dazzla 23:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

nah. progressive taxation means increasing the tax burden on the rich compared to regressive taxation which relatively increases taxation upon people of below median income. Dazzla is wrong, because there is no proof beyond political argument that a minimum wage does actually increase the living standards or earning potential or the poor, mainly it impacts upon people like paperboys and 2nd it is not progressive when it is coupled with the UK's biggest ever immigration wave ruthlessly and relentless forcing down wages. 194.112.58.29 02:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Criticisms by the left" are relevant in that the Bennite Left is where Mr Blair appeared to start his political journey when he was first selected and elected. When people like Roy Hattersley were getting lots of abuse for (in my view) trying to keep the Labour Party affiliated to the real world, Blair was seemingly in the opposite camp - as were many of the people who later became leading lights in New Labour. I have no objection to politicians changing their minds, if they admit it and give reasons. But as a former active member of the Labour Party, I do wonder what, if anything, these people truly believed then and believe now. Sasha 21:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're slightly overstating the case - Blair was never a down-the-line Bennite, being always in favour of UK membership of the EEC, for example. But in substance this is correct and an interesting observation: the intellectual mainspring of 'new Labour' came not from the Labour right but from what was in the 1980s called the 'soft left'. David | Talk 21:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the left? Viihde 20:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

On 'spin' and the Clinton campaign

There are multiple sources for this. One of the best and most concise is the Nuffield study 'The British General Election of 1997' at pages 56-57. See in particular the commentary on an internal paper about the election: "The authors were particularly impressed with the need for a coherent political message, as well as with the need to stay 'on message' and to use regular polling and telephone canvassing to monitor campaign progress." David | Talk 23:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to source such claims in the article. It seems like a simplistic characterisation 87.74.12.83 00:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Excessive inline referencing destroys the natural flow of an article. I detest defensive editing in which every comment has to be sourced. Good articles are naturally balanced. David | Talk 00:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It may be reasonable to suggest that his political decisions are coloured by his (admittedly, publicly played down) religious convictions - which media commentators (press, political & social), indeed, most of the Bristish public, view with abject scorn. His 'praying together' with Dubya (no comment/denial) before the Iraq war a case in point. Don't we have a duty to 'out' nutters? 82.9.36.7 06:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

On a point of fact, Blair was quite explicit that he did not "pray together" with President Bush. Wikipedia doesn't have a duty to reveal as a fact something which is merely opinion (because that would conflict with NPOV), nor should it speculate about something which is suspected without any direct evidence (because that would conflict with No original research). David | Talk 09:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

it is quite obvious that Blair and Bush 'prey' together, they preyed on Iraq, they prey on truth, they prey on decency, they prey on freedom, not they're preying on Iran. 194.112.58.29 02:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A point I'd also make is that even if Blair did happen to 'pray' with Bush, I'm not sure it's compatible with NPOV to necessarily make him a 'nutter', as mentioned above, even if most British people are somewhat suspicious of this activity! I should add I have no brief whatsoever for fundamentalist Christianity of the type Bush practices, but do think it at least conceivable in principle that someone can 'pray' without being assumed a priori to be a nutter... DoctorMartin 01:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The inappropriateness of edits by 87.74.12.83

I have made this first point so many times but it bears repeating especially after an archiving of talk page comments. This is a biography of Tony Blair. Anything in it must bear personally on him. It is not a place for wider discussion of policies of the government and of the Labour Party under Blair's leadership except insofar as Blair has personally associated with them. The criticism section has to relate directly to how the actions and policies of the government have been seen to substantiate personal criticisms of Tony Blair. Hence complaints that Alastair Campbell treats journalists roughly are germane to Alastair Campbell but don't belong here.

Moving on to a few specific topics, the Terrorism Act 2000 was little noticed at the time and did not attract significant criticism. The Brian Haw provision in the SOCA 2005 was inserted at the insistence of backbench and opposition MPs tired of hearing his megaphone interrupt their work in their offices in 1 Parliament Street, and not a big concern of government. The PFI, when it began in the Major government, was already being attacked by Labour for not being pursued vigorously, and indeed John Prescott had come up with something very similar while Shadow Transport Secretary. David | Talk 00:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The Terrorism Act has attracted significant criticism now, mainly following the Labour conference. It might not have been criticised much in 2000, because people didn't know it was actually going to be used to detain 82-year-old pensioners. When you call something a Terrorism Act, people (did) take it on trust that it will only be used against terrorism.

The Brian Haw provision doesn't actually affect Brian Haw, because he was already there. This criticism of Tony Blair as excessively authoritarian is personally attached to him, and not just his government, because he is personally very strongly associated with the law and order and terrorism measures. They are not seen as Labour party measures, they are seen as Blair's measures. It is not the labour party as a whole that makes statements that MPs have let the country down - it is Tony Blair. These are seen by critics of Blair as Blair's doing - not Gordon Brown, or anyone else - but Tony Blair, and especially as Blair as seen as more Presidential than any other previous PM. If you are trying to understand why people criticise Tony Blair on civil liberties, you can't only include the bits about 90 days detention because he has come out very strongly, you need to give the full context and history of authoritarian measures brought while he has been in power.

Tony Blair is seen as a very authoritarian leader (for instance see the passage about taking drunks to cash machines (which you deleted previously) to pay on the spot fines), and rightly or wrongly his critics associate authoritarian laws with him.

Similarly on spin, tactics of spin need to be explained. Alastair Campbell is not renowned because he is Alastair Campbell, journalist -he is known because he is known as Tony Blair's spin doctor. Given the close personal connection, and Blair's trust for him, it's appropriate to describe how he works the media, as these things are all associated with Blair. 87.74.12.83 01:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

absolutely, 'authoritarianism' refers to a raft of measures and attitude from Blair that have undermined the democracy and human rights in this country. It is ridiculous to say that this article is NPOV. I spent a long time on here last year trying to correct 'David's' bias, but it is just right back again. I think David should be barred from editting this page, he consistently makes it pro-Blair without even realising as he see everything through a rosy pro-blair paradigm. He should be banned, because he admits that his income as a Labour councillor is dependant upon building support for Labour. He cannot be neutral and is an awful troll

194.112.58.157 03:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Reason for education of children at Oratory School

Re sentences: 'Euan and Nicky attended the London Oratory School in Fulham where they could be educated in accordance with the Catholic faith of their mother. When this decision was announced, Tony Blair was criticised for rejecting schools in Islington, where he then lived.' This could be understood as implying that Islington has no Catholic secondary schools, and that the decision was made mainly or entirely on religious grounds. In fact, Islington has a Catholic boys' school that Mr. Blair's children could have attended (St Aloysius College). It is of interest that the most recent Ofsted inspection report for this school states that: 'The school is failing to provide a satisfactory education for its pupils'.

This is not an attempt to make a partisan point. I recognise the difficulty of maintaining Wikipedian objectivity in biographies of contemporary politicians, but the complexity and difficulty of the Blair family's choice might be better represented at this point in the article.

For a list of schools in Inslington, see the local education authority website: http://www.islington.gov.uk/Education/SchoolYears/15.asp

For the Ofsted report, see www.ofsted.gov.uk/reports/100/100459.pdf

All very interesting, but good to see that the point is properly made in the article now. I was roundly beaten around the head a while back by Sqeakbox and Dbiv for suggesting the same. The roundabout continues to spin --84.69.34.161 09:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

New Photo

Some clever person changed the photo in this article to a photo of a Pugeout (sp?). I think it was done by deleting the original image and uploading this new one under the same file name. I don't know what to do to correct it, but it really should be done.

Clarkefreak ∞ 23:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, it was K8Whitaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's blocked now, but as this is (at least) the second account of his this evening, he'll probably be back. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Scratch that...its now a Hyundai... Clarkefreak ∞ 23:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It was Blair for a moment, but now back to the lovely teal Hyundai...can someone tell me how to revert, so I can do this myself? Clarkefreak ∞ 23:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Think you need to be an admin to have access to the revert tool, Clarkefreak. - Wezzo 08:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

here you go: Wikipedia:Revert.--Alhutch 08:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Labour's policy on PFI schemes while in opposition

The recent edit by Cynical stated that Blair was critical of PFI/PPP schemes while in opposition. The criticism which Labour made of the Conservative government was that it was not being sufficiently supportive of PFI schemes. As far back as the "pre-manifesto document" published in 1996, the comment was "We must put together the best combination of public and private finance to renew infrastructure" and a specific reference to "We have long advocated a partnership of public and private finance to improve rail finance".

In the Labour business manifesto of 1997, "Equipping Britain for the Future" (B/021/97), page 9 states "In the future, public/private partnerships will play an increasing role in procuring public services and investment" and pledges to establish "a new public/private taskforce within the Treasury .. whose responsibilities will be to set priorities and drive the process forward". The manifesto also included pledges to encourage local government to enter into PFI schemes. David | Talk 01:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Tony Blair is not Scottish

• He was born in Scotland. Nationality is defined by your place of birth. Unless he has changed his nationality he is Scottish. As for not being raised in Scotland he was educated and lived at Fettes in Scotland - he spent most of his youth in Scotland in fact!(StudentSteve 07:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC))

• • A baby born in a stable is not a horse. Nationality is defined by your parentage. Are Spike Milligan and Paddy Ashdown Indian? David | Talk 09:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • In Europe, perhaps. In the Americas, however, nationality is actually defined by your place of birth. Any person born e.g. in the United States is a U.S. citizen under the 14th amendment, irrespective of the nationality of his/her parents. Incidentally, I don't understand the concept of "Scottish nationality" anyway. Scotland is not a sovereign nation, but rather a constituent part of the UK. Therefore, there is no such thing as "Scottish nationality" in international law. In fact, I believe there is no such thing as "Scottish nationality" under British domestic law either.

• • • • However, I am sure the scottish would like independance, alot of the scottish people I know always state explicitly that they are Scottish not British. He is Scottish, He was born in Scotland. He also was part of the "Scottish Crowd" (along with people like Gordan Brown) in the run up to the 1997 election, this and all of his (and his governments) Pro-Scottish policies incline one to believe that he is scottish.

People who say that they are "Scottish not British" are simply mistaken. It doesn't matter what you think you are, it's a matter of constitutional legal arrangement. Scotland is a constituent part of Britain, and has been since 1707. I could claim I was "British not European" but I'd be similarly mistaken. Besides, they're British enough when they're receiving £1,500-a-head per year from the Treasury in subsidies. JF Mephisto 13:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are born in Scotland, you are Scottish. Full Stop.

Rubbish. British definitions of nationality are differnt from American. It is based primarily on parentage, not birthplace. Wherever you are born in the world, if it is to British parents, then you can claim to be British. Some people prefer to refer to themselves as Scotish, but the are still also British, just like English people are.Matthewfelgate 12:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think perhaps that it might be useful to separate legal nationality and national/cultural affiliation (I'm sure there's a better term for my last phrase, but hopefully you get the point I'm making). In terms of legal nationality, there is only British citizenship, there is no such thing (I believe) legally as 'scottish' or 'welsh' (or indeed 'english') nationality. However, there are enormously powerful cultural affiliations with the ancient nations that make up the UK which still carry a very strong resonance. I am an Englishman living in a very 'Welsh' part of Wales, and am well aware of (and celebrate) the difference. This difference, incidentally, is highly likely to be of great importance at the next election, assuming Gordon Brown becomes Prime Minister after Blair. His perceived 'scottishness' has been mentioned as a potentially serious liability for the voters of 'middle england'. And in this context, I've always thought one of Blair's greatest strengths is his perceived 'englishness' and ability to empathize with this large section of the electorate. Even though I fully agree with previous contributors who have said that on many rational bases Blair would count as Scottish (education, birth etc.), my own view is that the determining factor is his accent, which is basically south-east English. Accent as a cultural marker is I think of great power in the UK (and no doubt elsewhere). DoctorMartin 02:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Scottish

Just so you know, Scottish would nowadays appear on the Passport or Birth certificate, but they would be a "British National." Tony Blair is not Scottish, fact.

I removed the "Scottish politicians" category. Yes, he was born in Scotland, but he isn't Scottish. An analogy for you:

Keanu Reeves's mother was British and his father was Hawaiian\Chinese. He was born in Lebanon, but was raised in Canada. Hence, the article on Keanu Reeves says he is "British-Canadian." Not Lebanese.

Tony Blair's father was English and his mother was Irish. He was born in Scotland, but was raised in England. Hence, Tony Blair is English, not Scottish. Neither of his parents were Scottish and he was not raised in Scotland, therefore he is not Scottish.

If, however, you believe that being arbitrarily born in Scotland makes one Scottish, then I shall have to ask that you edit the Wiki on Keanu Reeves to explain that he is Lebanese, because he was born in Beirut.

71.246.209.4 10:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Though I've got my recently renewed British passport - no mention of English nationality (my place of birth) that I can see? DoctorMartin 01:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well if we were to base it on people's claims, then the following source [3], which is a Gaurdian article stating that Tony Blair was 'Born in Edinburgh, [so] he can, but generally doesn't, lay claim to be Scottish', would suggest that we shouldn't call him Scottish. Robdurbar 11:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it is "what is a Scottish politician"? Is the category for politicians who are Scottish (in which case your above argument applies). Or politicians of any heritage who are active within Scotland itself, in which case Blair certainly isn't (except, obviously, as part of his duties over the entire UK). IainP (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this on Category talk:British politicians about 15 months ago - well okay a proposal not objected to. The suggestion is that a politician must be active within the politics of the specific nation - so for example Michael Howard may have born in Wales but has never been specficall involved in Welsh politics so is not in the category for Welsh Politicians. Timrollpickering 12:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question. My take on the Category is that it should include both (and looking at the list of articles in that Category would seem to support this). He was born in Scotland, albeit to parents of different nationality, but if a poll were conducted in Scotland (or anywhere else in the UK for that matter), I think the overwhelming response would be that he is English. What is Tony Blair's own view? Probably that he is English I would suspect. Is he active in Scotland as a politician? Not directly, and he has a rather dismissive view of Scottish politics, recalling here the infamous pre-devolution "parish council" disparaging of the proposed Scottish parliament. On that basis I think removal of the Category:Scottish politicians is correct. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, he is not the Prime Minister of England, but the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Calling him an English politician is overly specific. He may be English in his capacity as a person, but in his capacity as a politician he is surely British. JackofOz 12:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, that is why he is in Category:British MPs and Category:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, calling him an English politician is overly specific. He is not Scottish at all, he is English-Irish. I don't see a point putting him in the Scottish politicians category. He should be a British, that represents more of the whole of UK then just England. --Terence Ong ^Talk 12:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

He was also educated at Fettes College, in Scotland, but like most politicians his heritage changes depending on who the audience is. British/UK politician is probably safer. Rockpocket 06:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually his mother was Ulster Scots but lets not confuse things eh :D Arniep 13:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please source ther incorrect statement that nationality is defined by one's parents. It is clearly not, it is defined by where one was born, as StudentSteve correctly points out, and as I can abundantly source. Who really believes having British parents is an entitlement to British citizenship? That that makes one British if one grows up in another country? The British law does not believe it, that is for sure. For those who do believe it perhaps an explanation of why people with British parents who were born and grew up abroad do not have the right to British citizenship? This ruling is found in Britain and everywhere else in the world. The only exception to this rule generally is service (army etc) children, as there children were born abroad only because they were serving their country. So Blair is Scottish regardless of his parentage but that makes him British which is what counts as neither England nor Scotland have been a sovereign state in over 400 years, and which is why anyone born in either England or Scotland has an automatic entitlement to British citizenship even if there parents aren't British (yet further evidence that nationality is not defined by one's parents, please don't start claiming people with caribbean or Asian parents born in Britain are not British, as is being claimed, as that conversation can lead nowhere), something those with merely Britiosh parents do not have. read the papers, cases of people with British parents being thrown out after years in the UK because they passed their early years elsewhere and so are not British, SqueakBox 14:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

All three of my children were born in France to a French mother but all have British passports because I am British. I was born in Germany, my father in Pakistan, his father in India... It's rather more complicated than just where you were born. And Scottish isn't a nationality.

OK, I'm from Edinburgh, but one of the last things I would ever want to admit about the city is that Tony Blair was born here. If he wants to call himself English, he can bash on!

--Timothy Horrigan 16:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC): It seems to me that a British citizen born in Scotland is Scottish. But I am a Yank so what do I know?

Yes, Blair is not very Scottish: his parents are of English and Irish ancestry, and he spent most of his life in England. But he is at least somewhat Scottish by virtue of his birth. The analogy about Keanu Reeves not being Lebanese falls apart for a variety of reasons, one being that Lebanon is not part of the same nation-state as the United States of America. (Arguments by analogy often fall apart.) But there is a somewhat more solid analogy you could draw between Reeves & Blair: Reeves is Hawaiian, and just as Hawaiians are both American and Hawaiian, Scots are both Scots and British. If I said Keanu Reeves is a "Hawaiian" actor, the Hawaiian nationalists (who do exist) would have an elaborate argument proving why he is not in any way shape or form Hawaiian--- but the fact would remain that Reeves has roots in Hawaii. Likewise, Blair has roots in Scotland.

It depends on what passport a person has. If a person was born on a trans-atlantic flight, you would not say they were Trans-atlantean. Blair has a British passport, therefore...

Some footballers change their nationality (mother was Scottish, etc.) so that they can play for Scotland, because they can´t get a place in the England team.

You are what you want to be, and not where you were born.

andreasegde 13:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are born in Scotland, Lord Lyon will grant you Scottish armorial bearings, therefore Tony Blair is Scottish. He is also British, of course, by legal nationality. He might also have a right to Irish nationality through his mother, and he might choose to call himself English because his father is. You can, therefore, be Scottish, British, Irish and English all at once! Any British citizen may legally be a national of as many other countries as will accept him/her. In the UK it is quite possible to be seriously mulinational if you choose to be.

I agree with all of you, Tony Blair is not Scottish. Scottish people are proud of their nationality and strong willed. Tony Blair is neither. He is an embarassment to Scotland and has undermined Scottish parliament. And he has ruined society with this rediculous political correctness. People no longer have the right to express their views on matters such as immigration, it is considered racist. The rate at which MRSA is increasing in hospitals is aweful. I think, Scottish, English, Irish or Welsh, we all owe it to the once great empire of Britain to root Tony Blair out of parliament and open our minds to more effective ideas

Tony Blair: Rock Star

We gotta put this stuff in Bowen 22:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Tony Blair is a Politician from Scotland not a Scottish Politician. He has never tried to hide his Scottishness. He represents an English Constituency and is rightly proud to do so. He was not solely raised in England he went to boarding School in Scotland and stayed there until he was 19. At one point, his family emmigrated to Australia, but returned to the UK. This doesn't make him Australian. Very occasionally, when he is speaking, especially off the cuff or one-to one, his 'English' accent slips and you get a few words in pretty broad Scots, which is both funny and curious. The press have reported this numerous times.

It's okay for him to be Scottish and a Politician who represents England, just as many, many other Westminster Politicians are.

If someone, regardless of their parentage, ethnic origins or colour is born in Scotland, then they are Scottish. It's that simple. We have Asian Scots, Italian Scots, Polish Scots and Irish Scots to name but a few. What they all have in common is that they were born in the country of Scotland and are, therefore, unequivocally Scots. Unlike the millions of Americans who wear kilts and claim to be Scottish, even though no one in their family has been born here for 400 years.

Actually most people in America who say they're Scottish tend to have parents or grandparents who were born in Scotland, in Scarborough (Eastern Toronto) there was apparently a wave of immigrants from the 60s. I don't even think my Quebec French family has been here for 400 years. Anyways, it depends on point of view, some people born in Scotland might consider them selves Scottish, some might consider themselves something further back in the ancestry. Probably more complicated in Britain because its one country and what like 4 different nations or cultures that don't necessarily like each other. Anyways, someone should go ask him. Highlandlord 10:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Impeachment

Why is there no mention of the campaign to impeach Blair? [4] Guinnog 17:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess it isn't considered significant given we are writing a biography about Blair and until the impeachment has some legal force it could be argued that the attempts to impeach him have nothing to do with him, ie they relate to certain of his political opponets but dont and wont relate to him until or unless impeachment happens or becomes a major topic for speculation in the press, SqueakBox 18:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The attempted impeachment of Tony Blair is mentioned in the article in the section headed "Attempted impeachment". The link is not particularly relevant to Blair's biography but if curious readers follow the link to the article about the impeachment itself, it is linked there. David | Talk 18:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't seen it. It seems rather POV at the moment. Surely the fact that an impeachment movement was even started, however unlikely it is to succeed, is relevant to his biography? Guinnog 04:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC) In a parlimentry system a formal impeachment would not be neccesary, members of his party need only bolt and force a new election!

I've reinserted this para; shortening it did not make it better in this case. Please discuss here before making any wholesale changes, thanks Guinnog 19:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have been deleted. I'm going to reinsert it, unless anyone can justify not mentioning it. --Guinnog 11:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Guardian article

This edit was made by the journalist who wrote this Guardian article about wikipedia. Someone reverted him, SqueakBox 15:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Born Again

Where is the reference to him being born-again? [[5]] He is not listed on the born-again Wikipedia pages. Google has plenty of hits linking him to the word "devout", but offers "born-again Atlanticist" ahead of Christian. Wikipete 17:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This was an unverified addition - it was removed within about 5 mins of appearing on the page as it doesn't appear to have any grounding in truth Robdurbar 17:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Blair is a born-again Christian. See his interview with Jeremy Paxman I have provided a link for. We know all this to be simply a charade, but it is nontheless something Blair wishes to amplify, and we should not shy away from mentioning it here, in all its ludicrous glory.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/2732979.stm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.35 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for the link, but I note that nowhere in it does Blair describe himself as a "born-again" Christian, but only describes himself as a "Christian". There is a big difference between describing oneself as a Christian and a "born-again" Christian, and he doesn't do so, anywhere in the interview cited. I don't think we can really say that he is not a "Christian", so where's the "charade"? Camillus (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I note that the Guardian piece you cited in the article itself says "Blair, in contrast [to Bush], has always been cautious about speaking about his faith." So where is he wishing "to amplify" his belief? So he's a Christian, and keeps the bible by his bed - totally unremarkable - many Christians keep the bible near their bed. You seem to be trying to suggest that Blair is using his faith for political advantage, when the very articles you cite refute this. So I'm afraid that you're the one left looking "ludicrous". Camillus (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The article actually suggests that Blair does wish to amplify his religious convictions (ending speeches with "God bless you" and other examples) but it is nervous cabinet members who advise him against it. And I hold the personal belief that the only reason he "side-stepped" questions about "praying" with George W Bush as put to him by Paxman, is because the question drew an inane image and cleverly exposed the utterly ridiculous notion that these two men in power can be devoutly religious. Which is why Blair answered Paxman's question with a nervous laugh.

Your "personal beliefs" are of little import to this article. Using the phrase "God Bless You" is rather trivial - people use it all the time, and it is not specific to Christians. You may "personally believe" that it is ridiculous that Blair could be "devoutly religious", but the simple fact is, he's a practising Christian - how can that be denied? Camillus (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It can be denied fairly easily. Politicians do not make good Christians. And vice versa. Christian men do not rush to do a guest spot on The Simpsons while the men and women he has sent to war die bloody deaths. Christian men do not engage in four wars during their time in power. Christian men do not participate in arms sales to brutal regimes. Christian men do not chastise one dictator while clandestinely supporting another. Christian men do not fall in-line behind America, a country that has been found guilty of unlawful use of force against Nicaraguan Sandinistas by the The Hague.

"Born-again Christian" is an odd description of someone who is widely considered to be a crypto-Catholic. john k 05:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Benefits for Blair

The article says "the US had no greater friend than Great Britain" This does not seem much of a benefit. I suggest the sentence be removed. User:Eiler7 22:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a quote from President Bush. Having the President say it is a benefit. David | Talk 22:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Why? Did Tony Blair claim it as a benefit? If so, can you provide the source so that I can see that the claim is verifiable?

Eiler7 23:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Blair and Bush are united, so stop being so fussy about it, I think that it is an undisputed fact. or am i totally wrong??????????????????!!!

Religion

Why does this article tip-toe around the issue of Blair's Christianity? On Saturday the 4th of March he will tell chat show host Parkisnon that he called for divine intervention on the issue of Iraq. Are we ashamed to admit his religious convictions? He has publically claimed he keeps "a bible by his bed". Why is all this invariably deleted here? - unsigned comment by User:195.93.21.101

There is a section discussing Blair's religion. However, because Blair has not made a public issue of his religion, it would not be appropriate to make a big issue of it. Keeping a bible by your bed is not particularly meaningful in itself (naturally one would expect a believer to have a copy of the bible, and naturally one would be more likely to refer to it at night rather than during the day). As for what Blair might say tomorrow, let's wait until the interview is broadcast. David | Talk 20:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with David that if a politician keeps their religion as a largely private matter, we should just note it and leave it at that, with Blair, I think things aren't quite that simple. Blair does talk about the subject in public, albeit reluctantly, and perhaps more importantly, there has for years been a growing belief that his religion has played an important part in directing the course of policy decisions. As he's now confirming this in the Parkinson interview (in respect of one decision - in fact, in respect of his most controversial decision), I think we are being too careful by not giving more prominence to it. My suggestion would be to cover it as a new subsection of the "Criticism" section. The reaction to the Parkinson comments (see today's BBC website coverage), taken together with reaction to previous events such as his tolerance of the teaching Creationism in schools, desire for expansion of faith schools, and so on, should give us enough verifiable sources to produce something worthwhile on the subject. SP-KP 10:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The section about Blair's ties to the Catholic Church is interesting and relevant. Could something possibly be added explaining the constitutional problems his conversion whilst in office would cause, and a bit of the history? I know its complex but since Blair and religion is an oft discussed topic, it seems like it'd be worth mentioning.

The deal

I think the article may be too confident about the existence of the deal. Eiler7 15:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're probably right. There is never likely to be direct evidence of it. In my view the significance of the deal is in the way Gordon Brown, or more specifically his supporters, reacted to Blair from about 2004 onwards. David | Talk 15:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have changed my mind. The article is fine as it stands. Eiler7 22:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The G word

Should emphasis be made on Tony's declaration that he went to war because of his religious belifes? Me lkjhgfdsa 16:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, SqueakBox 16:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No because he has made no such declaration. What he has said is that he would be accountable to god for his Iraq policy, which is something quite different. David | Talk 16:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with David, but what Blair also said was that he asked God for guidance prior to making his decision. That aspect of the Parkinson interview is not covered in this article yet - I think it is significant enough to deserve a mention (see also comments above about the reaction). David, what are your thoughts on that? SP-KP 17:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is we should add this theme in a sourced way. If you can source the asking for guidance I would say it should go in as a brief phrase as iot gives insight into his character, beliefs and motivations, an essential part of this article, SqueakBox 18:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Where in the article do you think is the best place to refer to this? SP-KP 18:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it is patently absurd Blair asked for supernatural guidance on the war in Iraq should not mean it is skipped over in this article. He asked for supernatural guidance on a war the majority of humanity in Great Britain were on the streets opposing. Should we not reference this?

Yes we should - please suggest where, and propose some wording which you think would cover the subject adequately SP-KP 18:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It should go at the end of the Iraq war section and just reword any sources you are using. I wouldn't go fo supernatural guidance as seeking guidance from God is clearly acceptable and correct behaviour in modern society, and we musn't make judgements over his behaviour, SqueakBox 19:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, how about "In an interview with Michael Parkinson, broadcast on BBC1 4 March 2006, Blair stated that he had prayed for guidance from God to help him decide whether going to war in Iraq was a correct thing to do [6]." SP-KP 19:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great to me, SqueakBox 21:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Any other comments from anyone before this is added in? SP-KP 22:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

As a Blair supporter, sounds fine with me. The ep of Parkinson aired (well, is airing now) on ITV1, not BBC1, though. :) Wezzo 22:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Balance/Size/Structure/issues i.e. the challenge for Wikipedia

This article is getting to be almost as long and internally-contradictory as the Berlusconi one. Inevitable for conroversial/powerful and especially contemporary people, I suppose; their bios also attract disporportionate vandal abuse as well as strongly-felt POVs. The result is that it's beginning to lose cohenence, reads like something written by a large and factious committee (the essence of Wikipedia, I suppose), keeps swinging about and needs an army of alert defenders to watch over it. As such it is quite useful for flagging key issues about the subject but is not a reliable source in the way that, ironically, articles about some more abstruse subject that attracts only knoweledegeable and studious contributions and factual corrections from others, can often be. Quite a challenge to the Wikipedia idea, really as it's hard to see how to safeguard and enhance it according to NPOV Wiki principles without a more authoritarian non-Wiki approach (or elite committee to preserve the anti-elite Wikipedia idea!) --farsee50 11:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've just removed your additions to the "criticisms" section for the very reasons you give above. Although some of what you wrote could be regarded as common and widespread opinion it does not represent an accurate enough picture for an encyclopedia. For instance, "The whole New Labour project was designed to make the party (and its leader) appeal to (and not frighten) "middle England", this is too broad a statement. Personally I'm also very wary when editors use terms such as "this offends the left" or "was attacked from the right". They draw on subjective assumptions of what the term implies.

Also It seemed inappropriate to carry 8 lines dealing with what some people appreciated about Blair in a criticisms section. --Zleitzen 09:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Blatant POV r.e. Northern Ireland?

"At the same time Sinn Féin became clearly the largest nationalist party, as voters recognised that since Blair always capitulates to force, the most forceful party was the only one worth supporting."

I think that's a little POV?

Kaenei 01:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Opinion Polls

Just because the result of an opinion poll does not match your own opinion that does not mean that it is unreliable. They ARE representative of the entire population as respondents are chosen from a carefully selected cross section of society. All the laws of probability show that the views of 1000 random people will mirror the views of society - its basic probabilty. This article is opinionated and anti-war accorded to The Independent and no doubt the opponent of opinion polls is in that anti-war brigade.

Thank you Guardian reader. No, I disagree, opinion polls are often incorrect and un-representative. You can't put people in boxes so unless everyone has the opportunity to take part, then you cannot form an opinion.

The more people an opinion poll includes the more likely to be representative it is. Opinion pols performed by respectable organisations will take a large representative sample of the population and it will be close to representing the make up of public opinion, if not exact. If the Independent, a mainly centre left and anti-war paper describes the article as anti-war I think they can be trusted.Jameskeates 15:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Leader of the Opposition and Leader of Labour Party succession issues

Apologies if this is discussed elsewhere on the talk page or its archives, but I was wondering why Tony Blair is said (in the boxes at the bottom of this page) to be the successor to John Smith as Labour Party Leader and Leader of the Opposition? The Wikipedia pages covering these two roles both state that Margaret Beckett was acting Labour Party leader and was presumably the Official Leader of the Opposition (rather than acting) in the interim period after John Smith died. Is it usual for these "succession" boxes to ignore acting/interim leaders? I found some discussion of this issue here. Carcharoth 13:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Another point to add. The succession boxes for "Labour Party Leader" on this page shows the order "John Smith - Tony Blair". But the box further down the page, showing the Labour Party Leaders, lists the order "John Smith - Margaret Becckett - Tony Blair". This is just inconsistent. It should be one or the other, and one of them needs changing. I'm not sure which one is technically correct. Carcharoth 22:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a difficult issue and brings to mind the constitutional disagreement in the US over whether a Deputy President became the President on the death of the incumbent, or became the Acting President, or remained the Deputy President but with Presidential powers. Formally, the Labour Party rules at the time of John Smith's death said this (rule 5 (4)): "When the party leader, for whatever reason, becomes permanently unavailable, the deputy party leader shall automatically become party leader until a new party leader is elected". So Margaret Beckett was actually Leader of the Labour Party, and in fact during this period material was indeed issued which identified her as such. David | Talk 22:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is / are the leader(s) of the de facto left opposition within Labour to Blair & New Labour?

Blair, et al have been in charge since the 1990s. Yet, there is only a fleeting mention of Kinnock as a left opponent of Blair's move to the right. However, neither in this article, nor in the Labour or Kinnock articles are there anything on whether Kinnock or who in particular has led a challenge to the right direction of New Labour and Blair. Where is the discussion of leadership in Labour against Blair's coziness with and lack of critique of George W. Bush's policies in the Middle East? Dogru144 8:17 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Neil Kinnock has been scrupulous in not continually criticising his successors. The first recorded instance of any criticism was in 2006 over educational reforms. Labour Party opposition to Blair's policies would merit an article in its own right. Nunquam Dormio 08:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

November 1988 usage of "Spin Doctor"

Widespread understanding of the terms "Spin Doctor" and "Spin" in UK politics emerged during the late Thatcher administration, not with Tony Blair's rise to power. Here is the article reference for the earliest mention of the phrase "Spin Doctor" I can find in the major UK broadsheet newspapers: the article title is: "Gracious address in need of spin doctor; State Opening of Parliament; Inside Politics" by David Hughes, The Sunday Times, 20 November 1988. Bwithh 22:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Authoritarianism

May I ask why my instertion of words "sweeping" regarding police powers, and "roughly" regarding Wolfang's treatment, were deleted twice? User:Merlov 16:01 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Because they endorse a point of view, thereby violating Wikipedia's 'neutral point of view' principle. David | Talk 15:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Have replaced "sweeping" with "additional" although I realise that term may not suffice either. Have also inserted "violently ejected" rather than "roughly" and would point to the large amount of footage available of the incident to qualify that assessment. Have made changes to avoid potential edit war --Zleitzen 15:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind 'additional', but what about 'wide ranging'? The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2001 is wideranging in giving police powers. 'Violently rejected' is fine, though User:Dbiv thinks differently and has changed your edit. User:Merlov 10:06, 01 April 2006

Seems to me that reference 40 is irrelevant.

Hideous Photo

I realise that the purpose of the main photograph is simply for identification purposes and nothing more, but doesn't anyone else agree that this photograph of Tony Blair is a bit, weird? It seems to be a posed photograph and Blair is clearly one of those people who doesn't pose very well for photographs. The expression on his face just doesn't seem normal and distracts my attention from the aricle. To be perfectly honest I simply don't like the photo and I think wikipedia could do with using a different one. That's my two cents anyway. 84.64.197.145 23:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, all profiles on politicians are pose-based, like ones taken after being elected to Parliament. There are non-pose one in the profile, like when talking as Home Secretary regarding the closed-shop. User:Merlov 11:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind it. As Merlov said, it identifies him quickly and easily; while it's not perfect, no other really good shots of him come to mind. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 10:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with the picture at all. "Weird"? It's just Tony Blair - that's what he looks like. Camillus (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We seem to go through this issue every few months. As with other contemporary biographies, it's not that no better photo is out there, it's just that the image has to be (a) a good photo, and (b) on a free license if at all possible. David | Talk 10:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Disabled Again?

Who disabled the page again? And why? User:Merlov 10:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This was done by an admin through the page protection process, because of recurring vandalism by anon users. If you wish to see it unprotected, please propose this at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection SP-KP 10:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but no one has said where the vandalism is on the talk page. User:Merlov 10:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The vandalism has been very frequent; several registered editors watch this page and revert it as soon as it happens. To document it in detail here wouldn't serve much of a purpose, as far as I can tell - why do you think we should do that? The purpose of semi-protection is to take the load off the people who are editing the page responsibly so they can spend their time more effectively. SP-KP 17:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"The Right Honourable"

According to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies):

• (1) Styles and honorifics which are derived from noble title, including The Most Noble, The Most Honourable, The Right Honourable, and The Honourable, shall not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper.
• (2) Styles and honorifics which are derived from political activities, including but not limited to The Right Honourable for being a Member of the Privy Council, shall not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper.

If I understood well, "The Right Honourable" should not be featured in the intro and in the infobox, so why is it here? CG 19:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm. That's... new, and completely contrary to how we've been writing biographies for years now.

James F. (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not actually new. It was discussed properly at the time. David | Talk 17:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup. It has been policy for months now. Styles are not used but they can be mentioned. Any styles like the Rt Hon are automatically removed from usage. So we can't write "The Right Honorable Tony Blair"' at the start of the article. But we can say something like "Tony Blair is styled the Right Honorable" . They also can feature in infoboxes. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

And since we stoped using styles for royals (the only people who actually use them in most situations), it makes sense not to use them for politicans. Astrotrain 23:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your fast response. But why did you keep the title in the infobox? CG 05:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it doesn't make too much sense to exclude "the Right Honourable," but to include post-nominals, which convey the same kind of information. HRH's and such don't really convey anything new - all British princes are HRHs. Nor do "Right Honourables" and "Most Honourables" and so forth for peers. But for privy councillors, it doesn't make sense to take out right honourable. Why is someone's status as a Knight of the Garter or a Member of the Order of the British Empire worth mentioning in the first line, but not their status as a privy councillor? So, I agree with point 1 in the manual of style, but not point 2, since the latter discriminates oddly between post-nominal and pre-nominal distinctions for no apparent reason. john k 15:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It's better to apply the policy as it is. If you object to it, post this message in the policy talk page rather than here. CG 19:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection status for this article

I would like to establish what the editors feel is the appropriate protection status for this article. The context to this question is as follows - after a spate of vandalism by anon editors, it was semiprotected earlier this year. It has since been unprotected and semiprotected several times, and each time the unprotection has been followed by heavy vandalism by multiple anon users. There appear to be a number of options:

• leave unprotected and deal with vandalism as it occurs
• keep up the semiprotect/unprotect cycle
• treat the article in the same way as George W. Bush, with more or less permanent semiprotection (until it is deemed safe to unprotect, probably some time after 2008)

Any views? SP-KP 13:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, I think permanent semi-protection is perhaps warranted in this circumstance, yes.

James F. (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

With semi-protection proliferating wildly, I think it is high time we have some standards to use to judge how badly an article is suffering.

I propose the cut-off for permanent semi-protection should be some function of a) the ratio of good:bad anon edits and b)the proportion of the time that the article is spending in a vandalized state. Pcb21 Pete 13:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. At present, decisions to protect and unprotect are being made by individual admins to varying standards; it would be far better if there was an agreed standard that admin decisions could be audited against. Probably best to kick off a discussion on this at Wikipedia Talk:Semi-protection policy. SP-KP 14:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I know Tony Sidaway created a tool to find how often a page was vandalized. If that tool is still working after the recent changes to the toolserver, I am sure it would be helpful in putting together a proposal. Sorry can't find the link right now! Pcb21 Pete 14:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected again

The page has been unprotected again (the 5th time now, I think), and of course, there will be high levels of anon vandalism as a result. Anyone care to reinstate semiprotection? SP-KP 10:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that most edits are either vandalism or near-vandalism or reversions of the aforesaid. I'd favour semi-protection. 10:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree. This is getting a bit monotonous. Alan Davidson 17:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be left unprotected, now the schools are on holiday for 6 weeks or so, the level of anon vandalism will be down probably. --TheM62Manchester 17:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The little mites (if that's who they are) have broadband at home these days. Seven reverts and counting today. It took an hour and a half and contributions from various people to get one vandal blocked today. Perhaps monitor for a while but the rate of vandalism needs to be reduced somehow. Nunquam Dormio 19:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Blairite

Please note that the term 'Blairite' when typed into the search engine takes one to the Tony Blair page. This is clearly wrong, as 'Blairite' has meaning. I propose this entry

'Blairite'. This term is routinely assumed to refer to a follower of a political philosophy as espoused by Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingom. However as most people would have trouble associating any particular political philosophy with Tony Blair, the term 'Blairite' should more accurately be used to refer to Members of the UK Parliament and others who regularly voice support for Tony Blair in the hope of preferment and political advancement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.166.158.12 (talk • contribs)

• I once made a major edit to save Thatcherism from becoming a redirect to Mrs Thatcher. There is a good case for unredirecting it and attempting an article. I think your proposal could be improved:

In United Kingdom politics, the term Blairite refers to a personal and/or political supporter of Tony Blair, Prime Minister since 1997 and Leader of the Labour Party since 1994. Politically, Blair has been identified with support for involvement of private companies in public services, an interventionist foreign policy, and support for strong powers to law enforcement agencies. The term is used in particular to identify those within the Labour Party who prefer Blair's leadership to that of Gordon Brown. David | Talk 22:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the redirect page per what seems as a consensus here. I used User:Dbiv's text as the most appropriate. Captainj 23:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Blair has been identified with support for involvement of private companies in public services, an interventionist foreign policy, and support for strong powers to law enforcement agencies

I still struggle with any definition that imputes a poilitical philosophy to the word 'Blairite'. One could quite easily replace the word 'Blair' in the italicised sentence with the word 'Brown' who equally has (probably) been identified with support for the policies stated. So listing policies 'identified' with Tony Blair does not help us delineate, for example, between 'Blairites' and 'Brownites'.

Version 0.5 Nomination

Failed on quality: cleanup tag for refs section is not discussed on talk, but is still valid. Cleanup refs and renominate. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 02:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sunfazer's long-range reversion

I reverted User:Sunfazer's seriously long-range reversion all the way back to this revision from 1 December 2005.

Given that it's so significant a set of changes (and breakages), I think we should probably discuss this first. Of course, if the consensus is to carry through, please feel free to de-revert (or, umm, re-revert). :-)

James F. (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I was testing the new popups.js script, apologies! --Sunfazer |Talk 11:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Notes section

The notes section is entirely inadequate. I would prefer to see them improved rather than initate a featured article removal candidate. If anyone is currently working on fixing this article's references please let me know. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia, clean-up tags

Hi User:Raul654 - on the two issues you've identified with this article, here are my views:

If I understand you correctly, becuase this article is an FA, you wish to ensure it remains of FA quality - a good intention, which I support. I think the two problems you've identified need different resolutions:

• Whether the article should have a trivia section - personally, I like trivia sections, and think there are good reasons for having them. I don't believe that the removal of the trivia section of this article is a necessary prerequisite for this article to remain as an FA. As far as I know, there isn't an anti-trivia section policy which you we use to justify removal of trivia sections? I think it should stay, but would be interested to discuss
  • Trivia sections are horrible writing - if something is worth saying in an article, it should be said in prose. If it is not so important, then it doesn ot belong. Trivia sections are deleted as a matter of course from article on teh FAC (so yes, consider that the anti-trivia section policy). It is unacceptable to add one after an article has become featured. Raul654 11:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I understand your point of view (although the individual items in a trivia sections are prose, of course). However, this isn't WP policy - it is an opinion. If you wish to establish a consensus on the unacceptability of trivia sections, you need to do that in the same way that we do for anything else; if there is, as you say, a strong degree of support for the view that trivia sections are bad, then it should be possible to establish this as policy quite easily, but let's have the discussion. Until then, I think it's premature to delete them from specific articles, featured or not. SP-KP 11:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
      • (1) this is not just my point of view, this has been the way we do things for quite some time now. Trivia sections have been flatly unacceptable for featurd articles for years now. It's not explicitely stated for the same reason that the criteria don't prohibit 44 point neon-pink blinking text - because it's pointless to try to explicitely rule out all the bad writing styles people push. On the other hand, the "brilliant prose" requirement covers it implicitely. (2) You apparently misunderstand policy. Policy is created through experience of our best practices. The FAC has established, as a matter of course, to remove trivia sections. That is, by definition, one of our best practices. Your claim that it is not poliy is false. (3) No, it's not premature at all; the article was promoted without a trivia section for a very good reason; it was subsequently added and should never have been to begin with. And (4) a list of trivia is not prose; it's a collection of factiods with no context or logical order to them; thus, it is not prose, but simply a list of statements. That's why they are terrible writing, and have been recognized as such for quite some time. Raul654 11:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
        • (1) Amusing comparison :-) However, I don't think there's anyone out there who would suggest 44 point neon-pink blinking text is a good idea, whereas there is a body of opinion that believes trivia sections are justifiable in some circumstances, and not a bad writing style per se. Is there something in the definition of "brilliant prose" which specifically rules out trivia sections?. (2) I believe there is a distinction between policy and best practice - I'm using the term policy here in the sense that it is used by WP:Policy; if there's a subtlety about the term's usage that I've not yet picked up on, forgive me, but you'll need to point it out. (3) I'm not sure I understand your argument here; what do you mean by "promoted without a trivia section for a very good reason"? (4) No, that's not what I said. I said that the individual items in a trivia sections are prose. Each trivia item on its own isn't terrible writing, clearly - what I think you're saying is that collecting them together loosely in an unstructured list is terrible writing, is that correct? If so, again, that's a viewpoint, but there are good arguments for the opposite viewpoint. We need to have the discussion. SP-KP 12:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Cleanup tags ... presumably the editor who placed the cleanup tag on the references section did so becuase they felt it needed cleanup? In which case, the appropriate action, presumably is to do the cleanup? We shouldn't say "This is an FA, therefore it shouldn't have a cleanup tag" regardless of the need for cleanup - or have I misunderstood your comment. I don't want to see this delisted as an FA, but at the same time, it has to justify that status. SP-KP 11:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • On second look, the tag probably referred to the fact that hte references are not named (just numbered), as opposed to being a more serious issue. The wiki-text to generate it is spread throughout the article as opposoed to being located in that one section. This should be easy enough to fix - I'll look at it in the next day or so. Raul654 11:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, that was my understanding of the problem. I agree that it should be easy to fix - thanks for offering to do that, I was hoping someone else would volunteer! SP-KP 11:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted trivia

As can be seen above, Raul654 and I have different views about whether this (and other articles, featured or not) should have trivia sections. As well as that question, there is the more specific question of whether any of the information which has been included in this article's (currently deleted) trivia section should be included in the article at all. Rather than let that question be obscured by the more generic question being disucssed above, I thought it better to separate it out into its own section.

Here is the list of information which appeared in the trivia section prior to its deletion, but not currently included in the article. Any thoughts? I've given my views below - other thoughts welcome. In particular, if you can see an existing section, or can think of w new, non-trivial, one where any of the following naturally fit, rather than having them in a trivia section, please note that too.

* He is the only head of government to ever appear in The Simpsons, after voicing himself in the episode, "The Regina Monologues". This caused controversy, because he recorded his part during the Iraq War.

SP-KP view: Notable and therefore inclusion-worthy, though controversy should be sourced

* At the beginning of March 2006, Blair said that Isaac Deutscher's three-volume biography of Leon Trotsky "made a very deep impression on me and gave me a love of political biography for the rest of my life".

SP-KP view: Not sure - if we can establish the significance of this, then inclusion-worthy, otherwise perhaps not?

* The last person to become Prime Minster at a younger age than Blair, in 1812 was Lord Liverpool.

SP-KP view: Notable and therefore inclusion-worthy

*He is the fifth Prime Minister born in Scotland, and the first since Ramsay MacDonald.

SP-KP view: Notable enough? Not sure

*He is currently the seventh longest continuously-serving Prime Minister in British history.

SP-KP view: Notable and therefore inclusion-worthy

*He is a supporter of football club Newcastle United.

SP-KP view: Not sure. If included, we need to source it.

SP-KP 12:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Write an article of trivia about British Prime Ministers, then. Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, not an almanac.

James F. (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

James, that seems like an uncharacteristically grouchy reply, not like your usual constructive contributions - are you OK? Can you take a closer look at the list above - it would be good to have your opinion on whether any of the above are worthy of inclusion, or do you feel they all fall below the line? SP-KP 16:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but there have been quite a few people going on about keeping trivia in articles of late, and it's made me (and many others) somewhat grumpy. :-)

Trivia sections are by definition not suitable for an encyclopædia. If you can weave the item of trivia into the actual prose in a useful way - e.g., "Blair coasted victory in 1997, becoming the youngest Prime Minister since The Lord Liverpool", or for the appeareance in The Simpsons could (perhaps) go into a section on his relationship with the media (Murdoch in particular, in this instance) and how he puts himself across to both British citizens and those of other countries (primarily, in the case of The Simpsons, the US) - then yes, their addition embellishes and improves the article. However, the solitary collection of disjoint pieces of trivial and often fatuous information has no place in an encyclopædic context.

James F. (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, you're forgiven :-) Do you agree, though, that given that there is such a divergence of views on this, that we ought to be trying to form a community consensus? At the moment (see discussion above) I don't believe there is one. Or am I misreading the situation? SP-KP 17:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are misreading the situation. Raul654 17:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, but tell me why. Where is there a documented, agreed approach to tackling trivia? Sorry to keep going on about this, but I don't think you can reasonably expect me just to accept that your view on this is the established community consensus without the same level of evidence that you would expect if I was making a similar assertion that you disagreed with. SP-KP 17:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Why on Earth would it need to be "documented" to be true? Remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

James F. (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the question you need to ask yourself is not whether it is true, but how can you convince me that it is true. If someone tells me that they believe that something is Wikipedia policy, established practice etc, I have two choices, to believe them, or not. Lots of things influence which option I choose. Foremost, there's Assume Good Faith, and therefore I believe that you both genuinely believe what you are telling me. If two or more editors are saying the same thing, especially if they are experienced editors like the two of you are, then that obviously adds more credibility to what is being said. However, I still cannot be sure that it's me, not you, who is misinterpreting the situation. From what I've read on this particular issue, I believe that there is actually quite a range of views on the subject of trivia, and that what you are saying, although you believe it yourself, actually isn't true, even though you both believe it to be. The point about documentation is that it gives accountability and auditability - everyone can see whether something is an agreed common position or not. If you can point me at something documented, that strengthens your case; in the absence of documentation, I'm actually more inclined to think that what you're saying is incorrect. SP-KP 18:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to be sure about established practice for trivia, look through the featured article debates and see if any articles were included with trivia sections, from what James and Raul have said, I doubt it. I personally am split on this issue, I think it is nice to include the trivia, but having a section on it is a magnet for anyone who wants to add the tiniest most irrelevant piece of information and argue it is notable because it appeared in newspaper once. The best solution is to weave it into the article as other editors suggested - where that can't be done it's a shame we can't have a section for it... CaptainJ ^{(t | c | e)} 20:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to integrate some of the more significant trivia into the article, per James F. and SP-KP then. --Guinnog 18:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Overall assessments?

I'm a newcomer to this page, so maybe I should be hesitant to suggest significant changes. But maybe sections might be added attempting to sum up TB's overall political philosophy, achievements, or character? Maybe something along these lines would be useful to the casual reader who doesn't want to read the whole article?

Perhaps something like this (re political philosophy) could go somewhere:

Which part of the political spectrum Tony Blair occupies is hotly disputed. Many old-style Conservatives regard him as a left-winger, while many of his left-wing critics would place him on the right of centre. Blair rarely applies such labels to himself, though he promised, in advance of the 1997 election, that New Labour would govern "from the radical centre", and he is on record as describing himself as a "social democrat".

An overview of Blair's policies gives an idea of the difficulty of defining him politically. He has raised taxes (though not by very much), implemented redistributive policies (to a modest extent), introduced a minimum wage and some new employment rights (while leaving Margaret Thatcher's trade union legislation wholly unchanged), introduced important constitutional reforms (which remain incomplete and controversial), promoted new rights for gay people in the Civil Partnerships Act, and engaged more closely with the EU than the Conservatives would have done. On the other hand, he has firmly supported George W. Bush's foreign policy (while reportedly attempting to act as a restraining influence on him), introduced substantial market-based reforms in the education and health sectors (though not to the extent advocated by the Conservatives), introduced student tuition fees (with safeguards for poor students), sought to reduce (certain categories of) welfare payments, and introduced tough anti-terrorism and identity card legislation (at a time of real danger and with claimed public support).

Or something like this (re character):

It may seem difficult to reconcile the twin images of Tony Blair, the earnest practising Christian who once described himself as "a pretty straight kind of guy" and insisted that he "acted in good faith" over the Iraq War, and "Bliar", the mendacious politician who manipulates the media for political advantage and led Britain into a war on the basis of information that proved to be entirely false. One view might be that Blair and New Labour's heavy use of "spin" and news management tactics, while not ultimately amounting in themselves to lying or wholly reprehensible conduct, have encouraged cynicism and lowered public trust in Blair to the extent that many are unable to believe his protestations of sincerity and good faith (as, in particular, after the Iraq War) even when they are true.

Is this too POV? -- Ancus 14:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the last para is not merely very POV, but already covered, and I would be strongly against including any of it. It could be argued that most of the material related to Blair's politics is likewise already covered although not in a single discrete paragraph. Perhaps that would be better placed at Blairism. David | Talk 13:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'll admit that the last para is perhaps inappropriate (though it's a classic Blairesque example of triangulation, no?). My point about the other material is that, as you say, it's not covered in a composite, discrete way, and I think that a dedicated section on this page (as well as under Blairism) would serve a useful purpose. Ancus 15:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Spelling error in section "Domestic Policies", near the end: Sentence "Blair has supported gay rights more then any previous British Prime Minister". needs "then" changed to "than"

No evil person ever thinks they are that and no liar thinks that they are. But to the honest it is clear, the dissembling and reassembling of 'the truth' and 'the facts' is repressed in their twisted and foul minds to feed their lust for power. But we know the truth. The more they protest. The more we know it is true.

Besides. Blair himself has said he is a liar. When Michael Howard called him that last year before the election, he said...'yes - so what? I am a liar, but so is Michael Howard'. They try and forget now, but we know the truth.

When oh when will England be free of these foul tyrants! Though I long for Magna Carta, the truths and rights of free born Britons we know it shall not be again, they have paved this land with the blue laws of Puritanism, whilst they fatten themselves as pigs, they set the low high and the high very low, and hark! We might see it, the great clashing of factions begins.

All evil doers get their just deserts eventually...

Do you have a citation from a reliable source for that quote? David | Talk 13:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not an exact quote, would need research. You remember when it happened, last year during the election campaign...I'll look about194.112.59.180 13:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

History Man

Has anyone ever considered just how awful Tony Blair and his government really is? It was always the case that Margaret Thatcher was his inspiration, and he is now clinging on to office, I believe, for the simple reason that he wants to exceed her eleven year record, and thus attain his own place in history. What are we left with; what is Blair's place in history to be?

Forget longevity; here are the main points to consider.

1. He started unravelling the United Kingdom, bequething to Scotland a national Parliament of painful mediocrity.

2. The British have lost control of their borders.

3. Crime and the causes of crime are out of control.

4. Taxation is now at crippling levels, with money pouring into the NHS and other financial black holes.

5. He has, by his actions, invited terrorism to make a home in cities and towns throughout the United Kingdom.

5. He has involved Britain in a foreign adventure far more serious than that which destroyed poor Anthony Eden in 1956. Iraq is worse than Suez for the simple reason that we have the wolf by the ears-we do not want to hang on but we dare not let go. Perhaps the best epitaph on Blair is to be found in Shakespeare's Macbeth-I am in blood stepp'd in so far that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o'er.Rcpaterson 08:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions. However article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for anyone to give their opinions on the subject. The article must be written in neutral point of view which means discussing all significant opinions but endorsing none of them. David | Talk 08:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Which is, of course, a laughable statement coming from 'David'. Of course, discussion of immigration could centre on how Labour incompetence has let in millions of new immigrants thanks to their illegal collapse of asylum hearings and appeals.

It could centre upon his crushing of local democracy through the unaccountable local assemblies

Or upon Prescotts illegal building over the countryside with mansions for crony millionaires

Or upon his destruction of freedom of the press through the gross and manipulative Hutton inquiry

Or upon how their illegal dirty war in Northern Ireland

Or upon how they have screwed about with the NHS time and again to give money to their friends...

...the consultants who they spent £30billion each year...or how labour officials enjoy time and fat salaries with these consultants when they are out of office

or the gross corruption scandals involving Cherie Blair, Prescott, mandelson, Mills and Eccleston to list a few

or how they have privatised the schools and given them to their buddies under the 'academy' scheme

Or their relentless thirst for power, how free speech is now so drastically curtailed

Or how they want to seize all legislative power under a 'tidying up exercise' - which considering the incompetence of their legislation may well be warranted.

Or how they have launched illegal wars since Kosovo...

Or how they are incapable of telling the truth

Or how they have plunged electoral attendance to its lowest level since the 19th Century

Or how they talk about a 'meritocratic society' yet nepotistically give opportunities to their children, including in hollywood and in Washington where the little brat was given the opportunity, each week, to make contacts at the UK ambassadors suppers.

Or how Blair oversaw changes in legislation to make any offece arrestable, the violation of the double jeapordy rule, the changes in the neccesary balance of proof for imprisonment

Or how they hushed up the worlds largest ever nuclear leak at Sellafield last year to win the general election and then sold the site, privately, to an American body run by their buddies.

Or how the whole country is suffering under the cognitive dissonance of lie upon lie upon lie that leads half the country to quake in their beads that this satanic mad man is going to let armed soldiers invade their homes and try to shoot them dead without the scantest proof...

This is a bollock biography mainly written by Dbiv, one of the paid-apparatchiks of the Labour party, who spends his time, when he should be working for his Westminster council constituents editting a biography of the foul tyrant that rests his satanic backside upon the throne of the country spreading his evil ooze across the country.194.112.59.180 13:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read our no personal attacks. In point of fact I have never been paid by the Labour Party, and editing Wikipedia in my spare time does not stop me from helping my constituents. You may wish to read, learn and inwardly digest the neutral point of view policy as well. David | Talk 13:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

yeah, yeah. Read the history - you attacked me enough...& blah blah. you're splitting hairs. You get paid by the central govt. through Westminster gov. elected under the Labour ticket. splitting hairs...but - okay - let's just say some editers here are very blinkered and frightful trolls. Not naming any names David. 194.112.59.180 13:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a while since I have been here. It's interesting to note that a Labour apparatchick has been appointed-or self appointed-to police this page, and I imagine there are others. Improvements to the page? Well, let me think: what about scrapping it altogether and writing a critical and objective assessment instead of this absurd-and nauseatingly bland-'appreciation'? Will that do? What appears here could be straight out of the Stalinist manual for approved biographes. I would ask all those who are capable of critical thought to consider some of the weasel-like manipulation. For example, readers are being gently led to the conclusion that criticism of Blair's policy on crime may simply be coming from the 'chattering classes' (ugh!). This fog of lies and half-truths owes much more to the so-called 'chattering classes' than it clearly cares to admit. Rcpaterson 02:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)