Talk:Tony Blair/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

Too pro blair

This point doesn't seem to go anywhere else inc. under "NPOV" heading. The article has a lot of info but reads as far too pro-blair to me as a Briton.

You get the same sort of thing with Churchill. Yahdeyah great war leader who kinda set up orders for troops to fire on strikers and to gas Kurds a long time before Saddam got around to it. We all *know* he is a POS, but this is very difficult to put in NPOV context.

I feel like I'm reading a party pol. promotion for blair. Also:"The referendum is expected to be held in early 2006." this should be change. Expected by who? It's too POV and pro Newlabour.WikiUser 21:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's very difficult to deal with a vague statement like "I feel like I'm reading ...". You really need something a bit more specific: point out where the article fails to give balance, or does not include a critical analysis to balance a positive one. As for the referendum, the government has said that it will be in 2006: see here for the briefing. The reason is that the government wants Parliament to assess the constitution and does not want to hold the referendum during the British presidency (July-December 2005); the deadline for decision is autumn 2006. David 21:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think what WikiUser is trying to say (it's a point he's made before) is that the referendum will only take place if Labour wins, and in his view it's impermissibly POV to assume that they will win. -- ChrisO 22:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"point out where the article fails to give balance, or does not include a critical analysis to balance a positive one."-That's what I did when I said:"I feel like I'm reading a party pol. promotion for blair." In general it reads like blair wrote it. He can't avoid mentioning some of the bad things but it reads in general like the people that wrote it are strong supporters of blair. "The reason is that the government wants Parliament to assess the constitution and does not want to hold the referendum during the British presidency" Again the same. Better to say the government claims. "government wants Parliament to assess the constitution". This gov.t wants to scrap parliament.WikiUser 17:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You aren't arguing with me, you're arguing with the article. No-one can deal with "in general it reads like ..."; what we need are specific quotes from the article and your argument as to why they lack NPOV. Wikipedia policies allow people who are strong advocates of a cause to write articles, but they are (like everyone) bound by NPOV. The problem with scattergun complaints of lack of NPOV is that they too often just demonstrate that the complainant has a POV which they want included in the article. Please cite parts of the article which you think lack NPOV.
Your point about the government wanting to scrap Parliament is bollocks. David 19:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

About the EU presidency is written: "After intense arguments inside closed doors, talks broke down late at night and the leaders emerged, all blaming each other. It is widely accepted that Blair came out on top, making allies in the Netherlands and Sweden and potentially (and crucially) several of the Eastern European accession countries."

I disagree with this much to pro blair POV. Most af the blame went to Blair as then EU president Juncker explained at the European Parliament. Blair purposly sabotaged an agreement by making unjustified demands about CAP where recently (2002) a medium term agreement was made about (I believe until 2012) with the consent of the UK. None of the Eastern Europe countries allied with the UK. The vote about the Luxemburg proposal was 20 in favour and 5 against. Otto ter Haar 11:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposed article split

At 45KB this article is overweight and needs to be split into 2 articles in order to guarantee editorial freedom. Please put your proposals of how to do so here. I have put a note at the top of the article so readers can contribute. I hope to split the article based on a consensus reached here on Sunday. Squiquifox 21:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does it really need splitting? Don't see why. The warning about splitting above 32K is just a standard thing because older browsers have trouble, but it's not policy to insist on a split and there are many articles above 32K. I say leave it as it is. David 21:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary. However, if the consensus is that a split is required, the cabinet changes could be moved to a separate article, but I doubt that it would save much space. Alternatively, or in addition, the two "terms" of government could each be moved to a separate article and summarised here. However, to repeat, I don't think it is necessary. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary either. There are large numbers of articles which are larger than 32K and very few browsers nowadays have problems with them. -- Arwel 13:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason to split it, at the moment. But, on the other hand, short of someone shooting Blair, this article is only going to get bigger--so it might have to get split at some point. But what does size have to do with guaranteeing editorial freedom? Freedom from what? Monk Bretton 00:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes very large articles on a sprawling subject become hard to edit simply because of their labryinthine nature. Not the case here. Pcb21| Pete 11:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, no need to split.
James F. (talk) 16:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Internet Explorer for Mac (including the most recent version) has a hard limit of 32K on text fields. So if someone edits the article and saves it using IE for Mac, half of the article will disappear. There to guarantee editorial freedom for Mac users we must split the article. I am not trying to get consensus on whether to split the article, but on how to do so. If you don't like the 32KB warning try and get the policy changed. How do we split this article?--Squiquifox 21:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who has first, the good sense to buy a Mac, and then the lunacy to use Internet Explorer as their browser of choice, really needs their head examined. Use Safari! No problems there. David 23:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Umm, you are about two years behind the curve here sir. Edit sections were specifically introduced to allow users of these browsers to edit an article that's longer than 32k, as many articles, including this one, deserve to be. Pcb21| Pete 11:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A Mac with IE does sound an unlikely combination but I do feel we should respect the warning, which actually gives us the discretion to remedy an overheavy article. This is taken very seriously in some sites. See George W. Bush and Talk:Yasser Arafat. There may well be a case to get the policy changed on this issue, but that seems to me the only real way to avoid a split to many articles.--Squiquifox 00:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have brought the issue of whether articles should be split/slimmed or not to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).Squiquifox 02:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article badly needs to be split. No article should be 53K. Articles that are that long are being split.

  • There are still large numbers of people using browsers that cannot go beyond 32K. The 'edit' boxes are in many contexts useless for people with that problem. If they find themselves in an edit conflict, the page reverts to full size. So if they save their work, the wipe out everything over 32K. But if they don't they lose all the work they have been doing. In addition, the opening paragraph doesn't have an edit box, so once an article goes over 32K, millions of net users can no longer edit the first paragraph.
  • The general view is that articles over 40K simply are too reader-unfriendly and need summarising with secondary linked articles containing more detail. Long articles tend to be very complex with too much information packed in, information that could be used more effectively in linked articles.

Long articles as a result are being broken up all over the place. This one is going to be, either by people already on the page, or in the future by people who find the page, see the size, and slash the text to following Wikipedia guidelines.

Whatever about going over 32K, which is unwise, going over 40K is simply crazy. Having an article that is 53K is plain madness. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 02:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article has a "featured article" template which says it represents best practice. Obviously it doesn't need to be split and your idea of "plain madness" is out of step with the reality, which is in itself a sign of madness. Pete 11:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the Cabinet info into Tony Blair's Cabinets. It isn't really necessary here and easily stands by itself as a separate article. It may need to be better linked to from this article, and appropriate categories (etc.) added to the new one. It's helped reduce the size of this article by about 10k. violet/riga (t) 10:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

longest serving?

The article mentions twice that Blair is Britain's longest-serving labour PM. Once it says that he broke the record in 2005, once the date is given as 2003. What is right?--Doric Loon 18:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Harold Wilson had two spells in office, so Blair first surpassed Wilson's longest continuous period in office, then surpassed his total length of service. If you read it again you will see that it makes this distinction. --rbrwr± 19:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Aha! Thanks. --Doric Loon 10:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

Much amused to see BDD changing British spelling to American. I always assumed we accept a colo(u)rful mix. --Doric Loon 18:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Joke

Sorry, but it's POV to include an anti-Blair joke (which is not notable nor has it become 'an important sociological part of the effects of the political system on popular culture'). Hence revert of 20:50, March 5, 2005. David 21:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Blair News

Blair is an adopted child so that his family tree is not publically known.

Erm, not even correct if you are talking about Leo Blair (born 1923), the father of Tony. He was adopted by the Blair family; he was the son of Charles Parsons (professional name Jimmy Lynton), and Celia Ridgeway. David 20:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Medal

Blair receiving the Congressional Medal ogf Honor was recommended to Bush by 3rd party who at same time recommended to Blair that Bush get the KCBE Medal from Queen Elizabeth II - a medals swap between two arse kissers.

Question

When is Blair going to come up for reelection?

See UK general election, 2005/6. Pcb21| Pete 16:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
He's just called an election for May 5, 2005. ugen64 02:39, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Education, education, education

This is a common misquote [1] - I've corrected it

Closing British Election/Politician pages during election period

Shouldn't British Government leader and party pages be locked to editing due to the on going situation of the election, i.e. radio phone-ins are not allowed to mention elections, shouldn't wiki be the same? Or is Wiki a different situation ?

Certainly not. We don't lock-down US political pages during their elections, we just keep an enhanced alert for vandalism. If you think UK radio phone-ins aren't allowed to mention elections then you certainly haven't been listening to BBC Radio Five Live between 9am and noon Monday to Friday for the last two weeks! In any case, none of Wikipedias' servers are located in the UK, so whatever UK law says about the matter is profoundly irrelevant. There are supposed to be over 300 parties contesting these elections, though most will only pick up a handful of votes, and I don't think we have entries for more than about 15% of them - perhaps we ought to have a concerted attempt to document them. -- Arwel 17:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite see why you need to start your answer in "Certainly not", a respectable "not necessary" would have sufficed. I was simply asking a question, not making demands!! As for day time phone-ins, i am not able to listen to them as i am not at home during those times, which i would like to be, as BBC Radio Five is usualy quite good, but you will find that certian laws forbid biased oppions to be aired on radio during times of election; simliar laws also apply to court cases being discussed on radio. Though i do agree with your idea of having a concerted attempt to document parties not mentioned on Wikipedia. --

Certainly political pages are magnets for vandalism generally and especially during election periods, but George Bush and John Kerry were only briefly protected during the US elections.
Be careful about your definition of 'parties', and certainly do not adopt the Press Association list of candidates and their 'parties' as definitive. The fact that someone has paid out to the Electoral Commission to register a party name does not mean that it is a party in any more general sense of the term, and certainly doesn't make it notable for an article in Wikipedia. I would set out several criteria for inclusion of parties:
  • Obtaining a significant vote in one or more constituencies
  • An open membership - not 'one man and his dog'
  • Evidence that candidates have been selected as opposed to nominated
  • Publication of a set of policies which go beyond a single issue
If any party meets all four of these then it is worthy of inclusion; if it only meets one of them it probably isn't. David 21:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Born May 5th, 2005?

Vandalism, --SqueakBox 16:37, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

september dossier

Dbiv, do you have a problem with me describing the september dossier in this artical? it is a fact that the dossier claimed that iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The dossier also claimed that these weapons could be used within 45mins. The dossier led people to beleive that the uk was under iminent threat. the sun published a headline "Brits 45 mins from doom".--80.41.123.227 14:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The article is a biography of Tony Blair and so it is not the place to go into great detail about the dossier and subsequent political disputes, which is handled in the article entitled September Dossier. Anything must accord with the Neutral Point of View policy which presents all points of view as valid. Blair wrote neither the dossier nor the Sun headline, so they are largely irrelevant to his biography; in any respect, the dossier did not make a claim that the UK was under an imminent threat and was specifically written so as not to say that (as was disclosed during the Hutton inquiry). The article at present does mention the dossier within the context of the lead-up to the Iraq war and Blair's attempts to persuade people domestically and internationally to support government policy. For more details, readers could go to September Dossier or Hutton Inquiry or David Kelly or several other articles. That is, I think, the proper way of treating the subject. David 14:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
The foreword to the September dossier is probably the most famous, influential and controversial public statement that Blair has ever written. That is not 'irrelevant to his biography', and it should be mentioned, otherwise readers will see no reason to follow those links. Townmouse 21:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I seem to remember the leaked memo referred to earlier in the article not only made it plain that the british people would support regime change, but that the existence of WMD was rather a remote possibility and thus there was no legitimate basis for the war, only a popular one. Nonetheless, The cabinet then proceeded to publish a pamphlet suggesting WMD were probable and an imminent threat. Is it not pertinent to the biography of a man that he was shown to have dissembled to get around international law?Sandpiper 16:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I assume you mean the Downing Street memo. This states that Tony Blair believed that the British public would support régime change in the right circumstances. It certainly does not show that the attendees believed it unlikely that Iraq possessed WMD: it does precisely the opposite! All those attending clearly believe Iraq has extensive WMD, and they agree that deposing Saddam Hussein can be done in a legal way. The Downing Street memo itself is pertinent and relevant and that's why it's included. But the dossier was not the work of Tony Blair, and in any case most of the memo refers to an analysis of the U.S. government. And your claim that Tony Blair "was shown to have dissembled to get around international law" is proved wrong by the memo, and would be POV even if it hadn't. Hope this helps. David | Talk 16:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The memo is supposed to be a true summary of the discussion at cabinet. This has not been disputed. I quote from it Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy Does this not say that although the US was claiming terrorism and WMD, in fact intelligence was being created to justify this conclusion? This further implies that exactly the same criticism applied to the UK position. The UK would hardly be observing that the US was making up evidence if it had alternative evidence of its own. Any meeting presented with an observation that the US was making up evidence about WMD would surely be wondering about its own position?

Also The Foreign Secretary said ..... that Bush had made up his mind to take military action..... But the case was thin So basically the foreign secretary did not accept that there was good justification for a war. He goes on, Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. Which rather says he is not planning to invade ANYONE. It specifically says he is a lesser threat than the three other countries mentioned. You could argue about whether the foreign secretay meant that these three were also imminent threats to UK security, or whether he was using them as examples to ridicule the proposition that Iraq was a threat to the UK. In any event no one now is shaking in their boots for fear of us being attacked by Korea.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. So the attourney general did not believe there was any immediate threat to the UK, otherwise he could have justified action on that basis. Obviously he had had no evidence that there was, and equally obviously no one else at the meeting interrupted to show why he was wrong.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. In other words, the PM still believed that he needed justification for action.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real. Which says that british intelligence believed that given a credible military threat, Sadam would in fact allow inspection to go forward. The issue could have proceeded without actual invasion.

The Defence Secretary said ..... It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush. This does not say which context needed to be explained to Bush. But I would assume he meant British reservations about the war and why there was still not a sufficient justification from the British perspective to go to war.

The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation. The PM is essentially refusing to allow expenditure to start for a British military operation. I do not know his reasons, but I suspect he would be much more worried that expenditure would give out a signal that the UK was preparing for war, then he was about the amount involved. In the event, UK forces were still unprepared when the invasion started. There was a celebrated case of someone being shot because he had taken off his flack jacket, because he had to share it, because no one had time to buy enough.

We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers. It transpired that one of these advisors resigned because she disagreed so strongly with the final, but still equivocal, advice that a war could be justified. UK defence chiefs stated to the government that they would refuse to go to war unless the attourney general produced a brief that this would be legal. The now documented saga of the changing advice was not my original point, but once again it demonstrates that the government was very much informed and concerned about legal difficulties. That the government including the prime minister knew that its only justification was either to get explicit UN backing, or demonstrate a real threat to the UK. The government had a real motive to create evidence of a threat.

I agree the memo supports the contention that Tony Blair believed, and was quite correct to do so, that the UK people would support war in the correct circumstances. The issue though is whether there followed a campaign to engineer those circumstances. Sandpiper 08:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you have slightly lost sight of the plot here. The talk page is for discussion of how the article may be improved, not to have a general discussion of the topic. If you want to produce theories about how intelligence was used in the run up to the Iraq war, or debate its legalities, fine - but not here: they are simply your POV. A lengthy rehash in the biography of Tony Blair would simply fill it with unreadable anti-war POV, possibly provoke pro-war POV in retaliation, and therefore make the article less use. For what it's worth the Downing Street memo was not a Cabinet minute: it was a discussion outside Cabinet involving some Cabinet ministers and civil servants. It is relevant to the article only in the sense of (a) the light it casts on what Tony Blair was thinking in the run-up to war (and here it substantiates that what he said in public was very much what he believed in private), and (b) the effect it had on the perception of Blair when published. David | Talk 11:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Um, yes, I was talking about how the article can be improved...rather than just doing it. That seemed the more sensible course, to find out what other people think. No comments from others so far.

Some or none of this might be the best way to amend the article. I was attempting to show that the facts in the memo support conclusions totally contrary to your own assertion.

The rather long repost was to show where the memo in fact demonstrates that Blair did not tell the truth in public, which got him into a whole load of trouble. He seems quite unlikely to explain what really happened, presumably not least for fear of prosecution. Good of you to point out that this was a very kitchen cabinet meeting, which absolves the majority of the cabinet from knowledge of what was discussed, but otherwise puts more responsibility on those who did know what is included in it.

I am neither producing theories nor debating legalities. I am discussing facts which exist in the public record. Fact, the attourney general said there was no basis for war. Fact, the foreign secretary thought the case for war was thin and that other countries were a greater risk. Fact, the official from British intelligence charged with advising the prime minister, said the Americans were arranging evidence to fit their point of view re WMD and terrorists. Fact, the prime minister acknowledged the need for a justification, for example sadam refusing to allow in weapons inpectors. These are precis of the document, not opinions. Whoever wrote the existing article has already included selected items from the memo. It is perfectly possible to simply include precis describing the meeting without drawing any inferences. Exactly NPOV.

What is also not 'my point of view' is that distrust of the prime minister later became a very serious argument in the next election campaign. It recurred repeatedly despite attempts by the labour campaign team to change the subject. A large part of it stemmed from this issue which is poorly documented because it was intended to be secret. Various documents leaked into the public domain and (again fact)a significant proportion of the British public drew the same conclusions that I do.

The PM may never have seen the various dossiers before they were released. It seems extraordinarily unlikely that they would have been produced against his instructions or views, but that is beside the point. The point is that whoever wrote or released them, he knew them to be incorrect or misleading but did not correct this himself.

I would add my personal point of view that Blair is the best man for the position we have. I do not think he was necessarily even wrong in his choice of actions. But I do not see any of that as reason not to state the facts as now known. Sandpiper 20:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think this section is unsatisfactory, for several reasons.
  • The history of the war is awkwardly interspersed with the controversy over starting the war.
  • It repeatedly mentions Blair's claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, but only vaguely and implicitly. It does not report or quote any of his many public statements on the subject (e.g. "what the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons").
  • Therefore, although it says some people think he told lies, it doesn't say what these supposed lies were.
  • It doesn't mention the February dossier.
  • It doesn't properly explain his argument for war, based on the premises of WMDs and/or noncooperation with the UN.
  • It claims the Hutton Inquiry found that Blair had honestly stated what he believed - this is true in a limited sense, but very misleading in this context. The only conclusion about Blair's claims of WMD in the report is 'I concluded that a question of such wide import, which would involve the consideration of a wide range of evidence, is not one which falls within my terms of reference.' It did conclude, however, that Blair had not inserted these claims into the body of the report, so it did imply he was telling the truth when he said he hadn't.
  • It claims the Butler Review drews the same conclusion. I can't find anything to that effect in the report, and politicians were deliberately excluded from the scope of the enquiry. To the contrary, it exonerates officials of lying to the government about the reliability of their intelligence reports, but it does draw attention to several questionable statements Blair made, e.g. that the intelligence behind the September dossier was "extensive, detailed and authoritative".
  • It barely mentions the question of whether the war was legal.
  • These defects all have the effect of supporting the POV that Blair did nothing wrong.
It's worth mentioning that the entries for the Hutton Inquiry, Butler Review, September Dossier, Downing Street memo and David Kelly don't tackle the questions of whether Blair lied about WMDs and whether the war was legal. (And nor should they.)
In my opinion, the government's justifications for the war, and the several ensuing allegations, are sufficiently important and complex to warrant a detailed description, perhaps on a page of their own. This section can refer to the debate, and then deal with the war (and preferably the occupation) in chronological order. But if we are going to leave out much of the most serious controversy of Blair's career, let's omit equal amounts from all POVs.
Townmouse 23:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
In the text the Downing street memorandum is now mentioned at two places shortly after each other with different comments.
This should be edited. The memorandum should be described shortly at only one place within the Blair article.
Otto ter Haar 11:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Time to lose the prefix style

A survey was conducted, with the upshot that the majority of WP voters do not support the use of prefixed formal styles at the start of biographic articles. No other specific MoS recommendation reached consensu of 75%, but the style prefix was less than 50%.

Moreover, Blair is just about alone among world leaders in having an article with such a prefixed style. For example, Bush, Chávez, Castro, Chirac, Fahd, Howard, Fox, Koizumi, Martin, Mbeki, Obasanjo, and Putin are all national political leaders whose bios do not have prefixed styles (even though all of them formally have such styles). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:35, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

"Just about alone"? Don't make me laugh. Try looking at the other articles in Category:Members of the Privy Council. Proteus (Talk) 20:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
In response to your edit: Paul Martin, Helen Clark, Beatrix of the Netherlands, Akihito, etc. (Also, it's generally considered rather rude to change a statement that someone has already replied to.) Proteus (Talk) 21:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the survey - perhaps you could let us know where it was conducted. In the meantime keep the article as currently formulated with 'The Right Honourable'; this is community consensus among editors of this article. Dbiv 22:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles

Time for some facts. A convention existed, based on a consensus, to use styles. A group of people, of which Lulu was the main leader, scrambled around Wikipedia removing styles contrary to the consensus. Whig called a vote. He used a ridiculous voting system that confused everyone. No consensus existed, so with ingenious twisting of the facts, Whig ruled that that meant that people had replaced the current consensus with one his vote said was the new consensus, based on a 53% support level. Normal wikipedia policy is based on replacing one consensus by another consensus, not replacing one consensus by something voted on by 53%!!! To make matters worse, before Whig's latest vote, his so-called 'ratification' of his non-existent consensus, he and Lulu unilaterally went around implementing a non-ratified non-existent consensus. People are no angry now that users are voting against the ratification on the non-existent consensus in protest at that they see as highjacking of the process by Whig to push his agenda. Some people are even changing votes in protest. Standard wikipedia policy is to replace one consensus with another, not interpret a confusing vote as creating a new consensus based on 53% and implementing it before the process agreed to has even been finished, or to rule that a consensus is abolished without agreeing a replacement. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 22:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

No. A policy lacking consensus was (unilaterally) written into the MoS a few months back. If there had every been a consensus at some earlier time, this whole thing would have been very different. No matter how many times Jtdirl bald-facedly lies about it, there was no prior consensus. Once a vote was conducted, the lack of consensus for that policy became even more clear. I can't honestly claim "leadership" on conducting the vote, but I did vote; and also make comments in the discussion page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:51, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Picture

Is it a conscious decision to keep with an 11 year old picture of Our Glorious Leader </sarcasm>, or should we be using something more up to date? Proto 15:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's been changed a few times and reverted. The problem is that it's an appropriate pose (head on) whereas all the others are not, and also it's got suitable copyright permission. If anyone can find an up to date photo which is high definition and GFDL-licensable then please replace it. David | Talk 15:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

User:Dbiv just removed this line ... which peaked when Blair was taken ill during an award ceremony on the village green at Linton, West Yorkshire. Nonetheless ... from the second paragraph of health problems. That sentence was initially added by an IP user, but it looked right to me. Dbiv, is there a reason you removed this? Proto 15:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) moved to Dbiv's talk page Proto 15:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced claims by 212.248.232.34

If anyone else has any information regarding Tony Blair and a visit to Linton, West Yorkshire some time in 2004 can they please identify themselves? 212.248.232.34 persists in adding an unreferenced claim to the article and I would like to know whether it is true. David | Talk 13:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

David, unless I am very much mistaken this was the "day trip from hell" - guaranteed you will not find a press reference to this but you will not have to ask around very far amongst your press associates or friendly members before you find someone who knows the full story. Very much an off the record event, as we call them. Alan Johnson 13:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An odd subject for your first ever edit to Wikipedia. Sorry, but I am getting suspicious. David | Talk 14:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unless there is a source for it, it arguably counts as original research and cant go in the encyclopedia. Iain 14:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As I have already discussed with you dbiv I was there that day, 21st August 2004, check it out for yourself instead of blindly removing the information and then later 'getting suspicious'. I hope you don't have a gun! Anyway, this is hardly 'original research' it is a simple fact. 212.248.232.34
On August 21, 2004 Tony Blair was provably in San Gimignano, Tuscany, Italy on holiday (which lasted from August 12 to August 25). I now think your claim is completely without foundation. David | Talk 14:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
He was not in Tuscany on the afternoon of the 21st August that is for sure. I don't know how you define provably, but I can testify from being with him elsewhere, that he was not there. I have several other contacts that can do the same. What is your proof that he was in Tuscany that afternoon? I do not believe you have any, because I know he was not there. 212.248.232.34

Good grief David, what do you mean by treating me with suspicion? I think you have some wires crossed - since I have never edited Wikipedia, the subject of my first ever edit remains to be seen. In fact, it will never happen, as I am here strictly in a monitoring capacity. Anyway, summer 2004 is right for the incident I was referring to, and this ties in with your anonymous correspondent, though I am not sure about 21st August myself. I will ask around this evening, somebody will remember the date. Alan Johnson 14:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, August 21st is correct. Quite a buzz about this around here, we had all forgotten and put it to one side. Probably for the best really. Alan Johnson 14:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Both of you (if indeed you are different people, which I doubt) have led us quite a merry dance on this. Nice practical joke, but this is a factual encyclopaedia. The Prime Minister's itinerary was leaked and widely reported before the holiday; Downing Street stated on Monday August 23 that it was ongoing ("Asked if the Prime Minister was back from his holiday the PMS said that she would not comment on the details of the Prime Minister's travel arrangements but we would let people know when he was back"); and there were plenty of reports from journalists at San Gimignano during the stay. Please do not continue to vandalize Wikipedia like this. David | Talk 14:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry dbiv I am only going to re-iterate that I was there on the 21st August, as was Tony Blair. You second-hand quoting someone refusing to comment on the details of the PM's travel arrangements is not going to have much effect on my very firm memory is it? Still, I have carefully looked at the links you provide above, and NOTHING there contradicts what I am saying, indeed a couple of items confirm my memories. As for practical jokes (what is the joke?), vandalism, merry dancing and split personalities, please stick to the facts rather than making these accusations and insinuations. I understand why you are trying to beat me with the 'this is a factual encyclopaedia' stick, but it looks to me like you are poking yourself in the eye with it. Thanks. 212.248.232.34
The fact that Tony Blair was in Italy the whole time doesn't contradict your assertion that he was in Yorkshire? I'd say it fairly obviously does. You are either a fraud or labouring under a massive misapprehension. If you want your claim in the article, produce a reference from a reputable source. Otherwise, please feel free to contribute accurate and relevant information to other articles, but do not vandalize articles. David | Talk 15:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Tony Blair was certainly not in Italy the whole time, I suggest your read your references again, as you are now making yourself look foolish. If you wish to persist in this claim that he was not in Linton on that afternoon, provide some evidence to back it up, since otherwise you are simply calling me a liar without being able to back the claim up.

David, for goodness sake, his itinerary was "leaked"? You of all people should know enough to want to have a little think about that. If you want my advice, bow out of this bickering and examine the facts - I am surprised you have not made the connection yet. Alan Johnson 15:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We need to source that he was in Linton that day. We do not need to source that he wasn't in Linton that day. The onus is on the people claiming he was there that day to prove it, otherwise it should definitely not be in the encyclopedia, SqueakBox 15:36, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
dralan, you seem to know something about this, were you there too? If not can you provide a reference for this please 212.248.232.34

As I already said above you will not find anything in the press about this. Even if I could provide something directly, I wouldn't do so. This subject is not one that needs documenting here or anywhere else, as I suspect you know very well. Alan Johnson

Fine, we dont want it here, SqueakBox 14:55, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
SqueakBox, are you talking to me? As I say, I can't help him/her/it/212.248.232.34. What "dont" (sic) you want? Alan Johnson

I am saying to everyone that we don't want unsourced claims that he was in Linton in 2004; see 1st paragraph of this section, as this is what we are talking about here, SqueakBox 16:32, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. Yes, I agree. Alan Johnson

Right, time to stop the edit wars. CONSENSUS on centre or centre-right

The disputed passge is: "He led the Labour Party towards the ____ of British politics," where ____ is replaced by either centre or centre right. This discussion is about which it should be. I suggest a moritarium on editting this for a few days until we get consensus. Please sign below, and add comments if you want.

A general comment: Brian Walden has something to say on the subject here. David | Talk 10:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Supporters of centre

  • The Labour party of today, economically, is centre. The tax burden is higher now than in 1997, there are less poor and more middle class, but there has been no new "super taxes" on the rich. This is a centrist position. Labour's record is one of balance: The New Deal, for example, is a centre-left policy. But this is balanced by, e.g., cutting benefits to the disabled, a centre-right policy. So centre seems to be the best description. The new Clause IV is not centre-right, and it represents what Labour stands for in economic terms. Batmanand 09:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I think centre-right is POV - there are areas (e.g. foreign policy, law) where it's justified, areas (e.g. education, social care) where it's not, and areas (e.g. economics and taxation) where it's dubious (indeed, it's doubtful in some of these areas whether left-right is meaningful any more). I think we can all agree on "towards the centre", even if some people feel the party has overshot the centre and is now headed in the other direction. --Andrew Norman 09:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party" (party constitution as revised in 1995). Tony Blair has never referred to himself as being on the right. It is therefore fundamentally POV to say that he is. As Batmanand points out the government has been redistributive; the increase in benefits to the low paid in work is the most significant shift in the benefits scheme but I think anyone would be pushed to say that that is a right-wing policy. David | Talk 10:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Definitely not centre-right - the minimum wage alone should negate that. Plus Labour's increase in NHS funding and general antipathy to private healthcare, the gradual deprivatisation of the rail network and education policy are all leftish. Labour are still the most left-lying of the three main parties, centre-right would be wholly unjustified. They've moved toward the centre, yes, can't argue with that. Proto 11:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Per David, et al. I'll also note that, to my knowledge, it's been one anon IP changing it to centre-right and at least three of us changing it back. Mackensen (talk) 13:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Supporters of centre-right

Other comments If it is this contentious, then we should give up trying to say for ourselves what to call him/his party, and simply quote some other people on the matter. Pcb21| Pete 11:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suggested compromise entered which accommodates both POV's - P'sOV?? There is no doubt that those on the left consider that Blair has moved to far to the right. My POV (and we ALL DO HAVE ONE, let's not be in denial) is that he has. This edit reflects the fact that most Labour left wing politicians view Blair as too right wing, let's leave it there. ANON IP - not sure how yet to enter my details.

Scots or English?

Would it be more accurate to call him a Scotsman or an Englishman? Youngamerican 16:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No. Blair is English in origin, but because he was born in Scotland, some people call him Scottish. It's best to regard him as being simply British (to coin a phrase). David | Talk 16:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize

  • Blair and Bush were unsuccessfully nominated in 2004 for the Nobel Peace Prize by Jan Simonsen, a maverick Norwegian politician.

Being nominated for the Peace Prize is an honor, but it is not official and not necessarily prestigious. Any national legislator or about a third of the university professors in the world can make a nomination, and there have been as many as 140 some years. Nominators are requested to keep their nominations secret, so it's only those wishing publicity who make announcements. Altogether, I see no reason to keep it. No offense to the subject, this is a general Nobel Peace Prize "nominees" issue. -Willmcw 07:06, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Blair language skills

I note that Tony Blair speaks fluent French which is unusual for a Prime Minister. I'm aware that he worked in Paris for a time which might be where he learnt the language but I can't find any sources for sure. Perhaps a section could be added if anyone knows?

Tony Blair worked in a Parisian restaurant for several months

Satirical Caricature section

My version is clearly better for the following reasons:

  • This section should not be in chronological order. If it is, then it starts with 'Spitting Image', a show well past its prime and which has not had a significant impact on public perception of Blair. Rather, it should start by outlining general themes and then move on to individual examples.
  • It clearly is significant that Blair was attacked as someone who would "do anything to get elected" at first, but that no-one could say that now.
  • Surely vanishingly few people remember the 'Dan Blair' comic strip, and no-one reads '2000 A.D.' for commentary on contemporary politics.
  • No-one ever uses the word "disgruntlement".
  • Lying to Parliament is a small part of the accusations of Blair having engaged in deliberately deception over Iraq. David | Talk 21:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have no sense of humour, as well as being partisan. There is an analogous debate on the George Bush page about how to display his past adventures with alcohol and maybe more. This whole section is quite entertaining and gives a human side to his character. Spitting image was a caricature, and it still is. People understood (and still do) not to take it too seriously even if it had an element of truth. It is also still legitimate history, how his image appeared then compared to how it appears now. What people thought about him.

There is the issue of whether he did a deal with Brown and agreed to quit after 10 years, so maybe he had already conceded his place before he decided to go to war. So maybe this is exactly a good reminder of how things change.

I didn't know anything about Dan Blair, nor much about 2000AD, before I read this section. (Though I think I still have some Eagle Dan Dare here in the house.) I enjoyed reading this section. I learnt something. It is exactly the kind of detail which shows how he has been popularly portraid during his term in office, and the kind of detail which makes this article better than the Bush one. The Bush one has been sanitised to death by factions who will not allow him to be protrayed as a rounded character, warts and all. Don't you understand that Blairs whole career has been based on being a man of the people willing to join in and share a laugh?

disagruntlement? Victor meldrew comes to mind. This section lightens the whole article and is exactly what is needed to keep its gold star.

So what are you saying about lying? that we should go into the accusations in more detail? It is entirely accurate that he has been accused of lying. Putting that fact in a section about satire allows the charge to be mentioned but at the same time lightens its effect. Very good for balance.

I suspect a lot of people worked at crafting this section you want to rewrite. I notice you also sanitised another paragraph by removing the explanation of the satire intended. Your suggestions make the article worse, even if you are Blairs best paid adviser.Sandpiper 22:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My general comment is that I hope you have read WP:NPA.
Actually, I wrote most of the section. The first really substantial edit was from User:MrJones on April 24, 2004. My first rewrite is this edit which I made on October 23, 2004. David | Talk 22:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, I had not read wp:NPA, as, I am sure, I have not read most of the policies which govern wiki. And as I am also sure, most other users have not. I was following the piece of advice presented very clearly to newcomers. BE BOLD.
Now I have read it, I see it bans personal insults, including accusing someone of being a member of a political party as an insult. It does not appear to ban pointing out that someone is professionally involved with one side of the argument. This is quite important when trying to determine balance. Indeed, your approach rather encourages me to fence with you as someone coming from an entrenched position. However, you quite honourably post the information on your user page.
I will have to read the posts you suggest more carefully, at first glance you have clearly improved the section, but some paragraphs were there before and others added after. You are also attempting to prune it. Like I said, satire is a good way to create an accurate picture of someone. Some of the spitting image programs were particularly apt. You don't think so?
Oh, the line above 'even if you are Blairs best paid advisor', was not intended as an insult, but as fact. I may have been clumsy in my wording, but what I meant was that even someone who was specifically being paid to boost Blair's image ought to understand that being caricatured is not necessarily a bad thing. 'There is no such thing as bad publicity'. Especially for someone with an image like Blair, where he wishes to be seen as a good all-round, up for a laugh, sort of chap. From my impression of his image, I imagine he would also have enjoyed that section of the biography and not taken offence at it.
'no sense of humour'? that was meant to make you laugh. It was all meant to be slightly wry humour. My apologies if it upset you. i shall try to be serious when replying to you in future.Sandpiper 23:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) (forgot to add the signature)

Have to agree with most of the comments made here by Sandpiper. The chronological argument is certainly valid and, to my POV (obviously a taboo phrase on Wikipedia), makes for a better structure to the section. Spitting image is still relevant to many readers of the article and will have informed their first impressions of Blair before he came to power. I think it is tenuous to state that it "has not had a significant impact on public perception of Blair."

The section has a beginning, middle and end with the broadly chronological order.

Nothing personal (I have read WP:NPA) but Dbiv seems to claim some sort of 'virtual' ownership of this article. I am new to Wikipedia, but does that not contravene some Wikipedia policy in some way, perhaps? --84.66.175.10 17:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sandpiper, I have just visited Dbiv's page. Not sure how he can be characterised as "Blairs best paid adviser". A membership of the Labour Party is declared, but not current employment by the Labour Party, or Tony Blair's office. --84.66.175.10 18:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have never actually worked for the Labour Party. I do regard this as an implication that I have been sent here to try to skew the article in a pro-Blair way, which is in effect a personal attack. So what if I had worked for the Labour Party? It wouldn't change the rules that we all edit under. As for 'virtual ownership', I don't claim that, but I do keep a close watch because this article is inevitably going to be a target for POV editing and I voluntarily give my time to make sure it keeps to NPOV and factual (if it wasn't for me, perhaps the manifest falseness of a Blair collapse at Linton, Yorkshire would be in the article?). If you look at my user page and to the pages I have written, there are among them people I consider absolute saints, and those I consider abominations - but I dare you to work out which is which.
It is a serious encyclopaedia and while that doesn't prevent 'funny articles' (eg the canonical Exploding whale) they must still be factual and relevant. Pruning an article such as this is absolutely necessary because everyone wants to add a tiny bit of detail here and there, and that unbalances articles and leaves them in a very 'bitty' state (I also remember removing from David Kelly a long section of entirely predictable press reaction which had very little to do with David Kelly's life but was merely an expression of those newspapers' political positions - an unhelpful section).
I don't think that what appeared on Spitting Image has had any significant impact on the public perception of Tony Blair such that it needs to lead the section. It's really pointless to have this section chronological, for it is already out of sequence with the main and largely chronological biography. David | Talk 20:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I can't see that Spitting Image would have had any significant impact on public perception of Tony Blair, as it was taken off the air before he was elected PM! -- Arwel 20:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I never suggested you worked for the Labour Party Dbiv, just that you were a member of the party, from your user page. Read my comment closely, I am supporting you in this respect. The assertion is from Sandpiper, not me. I have not made a personal attack on you, just an observation that you seem to revert many edits to your "better" versions - e.g. Satirical Caricature Section. Make some comments first, for feedback perhaps? Maybe less extreme reactions would result to your posts from "non-clique" members.
You also need to recognise and acknowledge that you too have a POV. It lurks in us all, and accept objective analysis from others, please. Your comments do not seem to bear out this reality. You seem to be committed to the position that you are completely objective and do not have a POV. My POV remains for chronological order in the section. Regards. --84.66.175.10 23:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I know it was Sandpiper who implied I worked for the Labour Party - my comment was directed at him. WP encourages people to 'be bold' and change articles then discuss on talk, which is what I do, rather than ask permission on talk and then change. There is no clique. I also know the difference between "my POV" and an NPOV edit: I know what to class as the former and how to do the latter. No-one has actually accused any of my edits of not being NPOV. And I thank Arwel Parry for his support in saying that the section should not be lead by Spitting Image, which is simply not remembered for its attacks on Blair (people remember it as a programme of the Thatcher/Major era, which it was). David | Talk 09:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In Dbiv's defence (not that they need it), lots of people keep an eye on this article (my self included), they just dont often have to step in recently because of the admirable job Dbiv has made of keeping such a close eye on it! Iain 10:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Smoking Gun: "not that they need it" - evidence of the clique ... Je repose ma caisse ... --84.66.153.218 22:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I was unaware I was a committee. Actually I think Iain was unsure of my sex and used a singular 'they'. But feel free to believe the conspiracy explanation if you feel a psychological need. We are all victims, and this is my cry for help. David | Talk 23:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I leave the question of sex to you and Iain, despite your signature announcing 'David'. However, you are not a committee, not being elected; but you are a member of a Clique: "A clique is an exclusive social group formed between a few people who share a common interest. Cliques are informal social groups, while formal social groups are known as a society or organisation. Cliques are most popularly known in high schools and colleges, and are formed usually by girls....."
I commend a reading of this most interesting article to all Wikipedians (requires much editing, however :p). --84.66.153.218 00:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm uneasy with the section being on this article at all. It strikes me as sitting uncomfortably with the rest of the article. Take a look at Richard Nixon, for example - a vastly more controversial target of far more bitter satire, but next to nothing mentioned in the article itself (certainly not details of long-dead series in comics). Or Margaret Thatcher - ditto. I feel this article should deal in a neutral and serious manner with Blair's life and politics, not with satire of Blair (which by its very nature will be one-sided). Should there be another article on "Satire of Tony Blair", or "Tony Blair in Popular Culture", or something like that? I feel that some of the deletions of satirical material are justified on this page, but perhaps wouldn't be on a page which was dedicated to satire rather than being a balanced article about Blair as a whole. --Andrew Norman 14:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't agree. Satire is valid factual informtion about public views on his faults. No satire program works unless there is a recogniseable element of truth in it. I remember loads of stuff elsewhere about Hogarth drawings satirising the politics of his day, and how much importance historians place on them for the insight they give on what was thought at the time. This is the modern equivalent.
I don't have any problem with satire being mentioned in passing, or with a larger article on satire of Blair (or of Prime Ministers in general - Steve Bell on Maggie's Farm and Underpants Man, Scarfe on Heath and Wilson, Private Eye's "Mrs Wilson's Diary" and "Dear Bill", etc). It just seems to me there is far too much of it in this article, when compared with articles about other politicians. It's really awkwardly written, because of the need for this article to be NPOV about Blair - the stuff about lies before the Iraq war, for example. Most people who were against the war thought he was lying, and still do - the most charitable interpretation is that he was so keen to get involved in the war that he was also deceiving himself. But this article has to say he's called "Tony Bliar" because controversial stance... inquiry cleared him... unpopular with certain sections... blah blah blah. (See below). Also, are a first-term cartoon strip in the Times and a similarly defunct strip in 2000AD (not an influential political journal as far as I'm aware) really worth mentioning here? There's material for a more detailed and nuanced discussion of Blair's image in the media (the Spitting Image depiction is part of a wider view at the time that Blair and most of the Labour opposition were political "children" with no experience of government and therefore unfit for office - it was a silly expression of something which was also being put forward seriously by the right-wing press). --Andrew Norman 11:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't agree with the amendmend of DBIV changing the blunt statement that some people believe Blair lied, to the rather more complex explanation of exactly which kinds of people believe he lied. Firstly, i don't see this is the correct place in the article for such an explanation. This is simply stating what has happened in the satire stakes. The article earlier talks about these problems, enquiries, etc, etc. This section is really all about what his critics think or have said. Secondly, it is factually incorrect. A proportion of people who were in favour of the war also think he lied about it. This quite likely includes members of the labour party, and members of the conservative party who traditionaly might be more likely to support foreign intervention. In fact, I think Michael Howard criticised the PM while supporting the war in the house of commons. In any event, there is no evidence that the belief he lied is limited to those who were anti-war.Sandpiper 09:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The sentence used to read:

He has been cleared of misleading the public about the reasons to go to war, although everyone agrees that everything he said to justify the war were just lies.

That sentence has several problems. Firstly has Blair really been cleared? By the inquiries, certainly, but if you talk to anti-Blair people they don't regard him as cleared. So that is POV in itself. Secondly there is nothing on earth on which "everyone agrees". Nor can "everything [Blair] said" have been lies: it was certainly not a lie to say that he wanted to remove Saddam Hussein. I suppose "just" may be in its secondary usage as in "a just war" but that would be POV.
Wikipedia policy is to avoid generalities such as "some people say" in favour of attributing beliefs directly to those who have them, which is why I changed it to refer to opponents of the war. I wouldn't say that means every single opponent of the war, nor that every single supporter of the war disagreed, but that it is more accurate. If you can come up with something better that doesn't take two lines of text to define who exactly had this view then please substitute it. David | Talk 09:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
no, it didn't. That was another sentence someone sneaked in which I also would not accept. I have deleted both the accusation and your explanation, as in fact I do not think either really belongs in a section describing satire. They are both views, not actual reports of satire. The same accusation is also largely made earlier in the section on iraq war. I have added the rider there that 'the accusation continues to dog the PM'. Which I think is precisely true and in context does not say whether it is true or false.(Sandpiper 10:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)forgot to sign it earlier)
On re-reading, the paragraph in 'iraq war' has this same problem of implying that only opponents of the war accused the PM of lying. This is not true. The two issues of support for the war and whether the PM lied about it are related, but not inseparable.
The faction which believes they were misled into war got very upset when much of his official reasoning proved to be untrue. But others who suported the war on different grounds also observed that what the PM was saying was untrue. I am sure it is not wiki policy to give a misleading impression.Sandpiper 10:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Tony"

Can I just say that I don't like the form Anthony Charles Lynton "Tony" Blair in the intro? It interrupts the flow to go back and include the popular form in the middle. This is an americanism and we should use British standards in this article. If the name has to be interrupted at all it should be related to the name it is a popular form of: Anthony ("Tony") Charles Lynton Blair. But for full preference the name should not be interrupted at all and we should have Anthony Charles Lynton Blair commonly known as Tony. I know this has been raised before but it still grates on me. David | Talk 22:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the current form is annoying. I would even more dislike "Anthony ("Tony") Charles Lynton Blair," though. I'd prefer your latter option. john k 23:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

David's option looks fine to me, SqueakBox 23:11, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Do we really need anything at all? It's obvious from the title of the article what he's commonly known as. (As an analogy to a similar situation, when "John Henry Smith" is known as "Henry Smith", we just start with the full name and don't put anything after it — we just assume the reader can work out from the title of the article that he uses his second name.) Proteus (Talk) 23:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In that situation I normally put the unused first name in brackets. Checking, there doesn't seem to be any actual WP policy on this. David | Talk 23:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Some examples, from PMs of the UK:
  • The Right Honourable Leonard James Callaghan, Baron Callaghan of Cardiff, KG, PC
  • The Right Honourable James Harold Wilson, Baron Wilson of Rievaulx, KG, OBE, FRS, PC
  • The Right Honourable Maurice Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton and Viscount Macmillan of Ovenden, OM, PC (that needs to change)
  • Robert Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon, KG, MC
  • Arthur Neville Chamberlain
  • James Ramsay MacDonald
So it's certainly a de facto standard. Incidentally, for Sir Alec Douglas-Home, we currently do what I'm suggesting here:
  • Alexander Frederick Douglas-Home, Baron Home of the Hirsel KT1 (2 July 1903 - 9 October 1995), known from 1951 to 1963 as the 14th Earl of Home
Proteus (Talk) 23:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
---
there doesn't seem to be any actual WP policy on this
It's kinda sorta mentioned here. Hmm. But there's a neutrality warning as well... [2] I agree that "It's obvious from the title of the article what he's commonly known as." FWIW, I think it's more a matter of felicity than policy [3]. chocolateboy 00:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The neutrality warning is to do with the dispute over prefixed titles, the incendiary fallout from which has ended up as a request for arbitration IIRC. David | Talk 11:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So does anyone object to removing "Tony" entirely? Proteus (Talk) 28 June 2005 14:19 (UTC)

I suppose it is obvious from the title - I won't object. David | Talk 28 June 2005 14:43 (UTC)
I agree with this, as it is indeed obvious from the title. — Trilobite (Talk) 29 June 2005 17:38 (UTC)
Me too =:-) --81.76.45.232 30 June 2005 07:15 (UTC)

If you call it anthony Charles Lynton Blair, then no one will know who you are talking about. Saying 'commonly known as' makes him sound like a criminal who goes under aliases. Placing "Tony" in quotes immediately before his surname makes it clear that this is the normal alternative to all of 'anthony charles lynton', and in a nutshell also summarises his career.Sandpiper 1 July 2005 18:11 (UTC)

It hardly summarises his career, unless his greatest achievement has been to win an Antoinette Perry Award. Townmouse 23:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Top image

I suggest switching the current image (Image:BlairL.jpg, uploaded by User:Cmc0 and claimed as "British Crown copyright") to this public domain image.

As Wikipedia:Fair use states: "Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious."

/Jebur 2 July 2005 14:20 (UTC)

    • Current image is definitely the best so far. --81.79.241.4 9 July 2005 18:10 (UTC)
I agree. The public domain image is hideous. FearÉIREANNImage:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint) 9 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)

Try this image then ... [4] --81.76.4.8 19:45, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Nomet's edit

Adding a reference to criticism of Tony Blair by religious figures in the section on Blair's personal religious beliefs is inappropriate, especially when tacked on to it is a suggestion that it calls Blair's religiosity into question. It's like saying "Fred Bloggs is an enthusiastic golfer. However, the Secretaries of his and other golf clubs opposed his choice of putter for a recent hole, and this has led to his commitment to golf being called into question." It's a ludicrous form of argument. David | Talk 4 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)

Scottish

If Blair was born in Scotland, why does he not have an accent?

He does, it's just not Scottish ... --81.79.12.15 13:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
"Being born in a stable does not make one a horse", 1st Duke of Wellington. He's not Scottish, he was just born there... Morwen - Talk 13:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

A lot of the article seems to have been replaced with the words 'owned 2005', but I don't know how to revert =( could some kind person please take this task --Skuld‡ insult 19:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Layout

Am I the only one who is seeing the page as one continous text with the headings merged into the text?

Not sure what you mean, but I have just moved the TOC back to float on the left. This makes the article much more readable and instantly accessible, particularly for those users with low screen resolutions (the TOC may not initially display without them having to scroll down). --Cactus.man 15:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
The 09:29 BST version this morning was broken but I think my revert of 09:45 BST fixed it. --Cavrdg 16:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Now I see what you mean ... what a mess, how did that happen. Your revert obviously fixed it. --Cactus.man 16:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I think a version with the TOC float3ed left after the 2nd paragraph is a significant improvement, so i am trying that. DES 21:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I continue to think that a TOC floated left after paragraph 2 is the best choice here. It avoides the large white space that the default TOC format gives with a long TOC such as this. More importantly it makes the TOC visible withoug scrolling for the majority of users. It visually balances the top-right image. No one has given any reasons for removing it beyond the fact that the default TOC style is "standard". DES (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Blair and Irvine - misleading sentence

The sentence "Blair was educated at Fettes College in Edinburgh (sometimes called the "Eton of Scotland"), where he met Charlie Falconer" is misleading, as it implies Falconer went to Fettes, and thus Blair and he are old school chums. But Falconer went to Glenalmond, not Fettes - Glenalmond is 50 miles from Fettes. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:23, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Children's Education

Dbiv, please stop unilaterally reverting my edits without due explanation. Your edit, "Euan and Nicky attended the London Oratory School in Fulham as they are being brought up in the Catholic faith of their mother" implies that this was the reason for choice of school, i.e a Catholic School.

I am simply making the point that when they chose the school for their children's education, there were other choices in Islington to meet this particular criteria, which ties into the following sentence on criticism of the Blairs. There are many other factors in choosing a school for one's children, I understand this because I am a father of two and have been through this. Did the Blairs expand on this point? --84.65.153.37 16:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You are speculating by saying there are other schools he might have chosen, and it comes under original research. If you don't like what is there rewrite it but without specualtion, and with some kind of source for what you are writing, SqueakBox 16:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

See [5] and [6]. I am tired of this arrogant and rude club where members launch reverts without cause or thought. --84.65.153.37 16:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Your sources do not back up your claim that your original POV research is anything but. I have not launched a revert without thought, nor am I a proxy of Dbiv. Please desist in your personal attacks because you can't get your way inserting inflammatory, speculative material into the article. The fact that 2 editors are now reverting you says it all, SqueakBox 16:54, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

2 editors reverting says nothing about anything. You did revert without thought, did you question any sources - no - automatic revert. THAT says it all. I had no intention of launching a personal attack against you or anyone else and don't believe I did. Nothing I inserted into the article was inflammatory or speculative and I disagree with your assertion that the sources are POV. These bodies administer the delivery of Catholic education in England and Wales, not somewhere that I reside. Regards --84.65.153.37 17:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
You have not sourced that although there were Catholic Schools in the Islington area which the Blair's could have chosen for their children's education at the time. How is this not speculation? it talks about what he could have done. Your sources simply do not back up your claim. I w3ant a source that speculates in the way you do, and you have failed so far to provide one. They show how he could have done this in theory but you do not source why we should put in such a hypothetical possibility. The very idea may not have entered his head. It is your speculation, or your comment on or interpretation of the fact that they go to a particular school. We cannot fill our articles with hypothetical statements. He could have not invaded Iraq, he could have resigned in favour of Brown, etc, a sinfin of what he could have done.You attacked me by calling me a proxy of Dbv, SqueakBox 17:20, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I can confirm that Squeakbox isn't me or my proxy. This row seems to have blown up while I was on the bus home. If you look back up this page you'll see we don't always agree about it. The problem with your edit is that it goes over ground that is already covered in the article. The reason for choosing the London Oratory School was that Euan and Nicky are being raised as Catholics. Neither of their parents has expanded on it in public because their position is that their choice of school is none of anyone else's business. If you want to expand on this then the sensible way would be to find a source for a criticism and lead in to a (slightly) wider debate on whether criticism was justified or not (for example, the London Oratory is a state school which does not select according to ability but does have a religious ethos - which is exactly what Government policy has been supporting - rightly or wrongly). David | Talk 17:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. If you can find a source that others claim that there are other Catholic schools in the area he could have chosen, and that this is a stream of representative thought, then you could add that, but your sources don't even try to do that, they merely show there are other Catholic schools in the area, which I never doubted, SqueakBox 17:30, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


Firstly, WHAT??
That is the whole point, there are other Catholic schools in the area, which goes back to the argument presented by Dbiv that this was the reason for choice of school, (see earlier).
Secondly, are you are saying that every sentence in the article requires a source to be quoted, otherwise it will be reverted? Where should I place these sources, such that the article does not become a mass of weblinks or references? Please show me where the sources are for all the other sentences in this article. You seem to be missing the connection to the sentence following my edit.
To Squakbox - I apologise if I offended you by referring to you as a proxy of Dbiv. This was not intended as a personal attack, but has been my bitter experience as an ANON editor. I will await with interest what happens to the next edit.
To Dbiv - apologies also, if required, I will consider what you have said. Thank you for your comment after the bus ride. However, that is the difficulty here. You state: "The reason for choosing the London Oratory School was that Euan and Nicky are being raised as Catholics". That is my whole point, there were many other choices available at the time, which leads in to this not being a defence of their choice and the subsequent public criticism.

It is this sentence that needs sourcing, otherwise it comes across as your original research. I fyour experience of being an anon editor is bitter why not open an account (which actually makes for greater anonymity, ie no IP number, SqueakBox 18:26, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Which sentence are you referring to? I also have no need of anonymity, grab my IP Number with both hands, but I might open an account anyway, thanks for the suggestion. I don't edit that much, which is why I haven't done it so far. Please also explain your reference to "original research", are you saying that any reference needs to be corroborated by at least one other before it is valid? How does one retrieve such corroboration?
Regards --84.65.153.37 18:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research, SqueakBox 18:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I will review this page, but please confirm the particular sentence you referred to. Thanks. --84.65.153.37 19:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


The bit I removed although there were Catholic Schools in the Islington area which the Blair's could have chosen for their children's education at the time. By saying could you are making an analysis of the fact that his kids go to a particular school. You must find some source for that analysis that is not yourself or other wikipedia editors. Otherwise it is your analysis, and therefore original research, SqueakBox 19:17, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


This seems to me be a revolving / perpetual argument. I disagree completely with your interpretation, but have to have my beauty sleep =:-) Let's continue 2morrow. Toodles.

Dodgy Dossier

I think a reference to this document should be in the Blair article. Although Blair was not personally involved in the compilation of the briefing paper, it was issued in support of UK government policy on the confrontation with Iraq. (See Dodgy Dossier). It also difficult to imagine that Blair would not have been aware of the preparation, or detailed contents, of such a document in support of such a politically high risk policy.

The inclusion of a refernce to the Dodgy Dossier will also clarify for editors the distinction between the September and Dodgy Dossiers, and avoid numerous erroneous edits referring to the September Dossier as the Dodgy Dossier. --Cactus.man 08:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is not neutral, and never will be. 150.204.49.17 13:46, Aug 19, 2005 (UTC)

That's not a particularly helpful complaint. If you want to claim that the article lacks NPOV then you need to tell us how and where. What does "never will be" neutral mean? Does it mean that the article criticises the subject or that it reports the subject accurately but in a way that can only lead to one conclusion? Please read WP:NPOV before putting the POV tag on this article. I am going to remove it because you have not explained it. David | Talk 15:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
He put NPOV tags, and the same inane comment, on a random selection of articles. Trolling, clearly. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:03, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

International Criminal Court

The text currently states that "several anti-war pressure groups want to try Blair for war crimes in Iraq at the International Criminal Court". This is not how the ICC works - the principle of "complementarity" means that the ICC only has jurisdiction where a country is unwilling or unable to properly investigate or prosecute alleged war crimes itself. It follows that, as no private prosecution of Blair has been attempted in the UK, the ICC cannot prosecute. I am not sure whether this should be added to the main text, or if the original paragraph should simply be deleted. Ramon123 12:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Surely it should just be rewritten as "several anti-war pressure groups want Blair tried for war crimes in Iraq at the International Criminal Court."? It makes it clear that, while they themselves wouldn't be the prosecution, they want him into the court and tried for the crimes etc.... Tyrhinis 19:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Eton of Scotland

Cites for "Eton of Scotland" phrase:

"Scotland's Eton":

"Eton of Scotland":

-- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Leo Blair Sr.

Should this info be moved to its own article? Most folks who view this page aren't too interested in the Blair family ancestors. Bastie 18:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

too subjective

On loking through this article it appeared as if it was written through a real ideological view. Some aspects of this might not work, but it read like an official potted history from the press release department. - and it was slightly out of date.

so..

pro blair bias

seriously, too pro blair

if discussing religion - it's all rumours. apparently his mother was catholic not protestant - were is your proof? He is very catholic. but it is said he was raised methodist. Where is your proof. Lastly - Wicca. This has been very well written about - why is this excised - I put inn the relevant links, so why cut it out - why?? Your bias. bias. bias.

Blair's constitutional change should not be called reform - it is just being altered, not 'reformed' which is a positive word. Constitutional changes are ramrodded through the Lords without proper debate. There is a record breaking number of bills, these have guillotined 6 hour debates, instead of the all night week long debates which used to take place for bills of this importance.

How can there be no mention of the Terrorism Acts or the Civil Contingencies Acts or the ID card Bill, all these things are mass increases of government power.

How about the laws restricting peaceful assembly, or anti-demonstration outside parliament, or the ASBOs, or the dispersal zones by which children live under curfew in certain areas.

How about the restriction in freedom of speech by the new laws and by Blair's media ownership laws that now mean only a handful of companies run all big media outlets in the UK - with the consequent restrictions, because they are both so close to him and do not want to be left without information.

How about the control of the new police units in this country?

Tony Blair had a speaker of his own parliament appointed in order to achieve this - another piece of parliamentary destruction.

What about his things on the regions - the way there is absolutely no control of local government these days because everything has to be done to Blair targets in order to get cash. How about their failed attempts to appoint fascist 20 member regional assemblies?

Why is Northern Ireland a success when in welters in bloody gang violence, when the IRA do a £20m bank robbery, when there are riots on the street, when Stormont in shut down and the province is run by executive dictat? How is this closer to peace and not closer to bloody meltdown?

How about the mass sell of of state assets from schools to fields to hospitals.

How about the shut down of so many army regiments?

How is the appointment of the Blair child, via no worth of his own, but by his parents friends and family not nepotism?

How is the UK's failure to meet Kyoto targets, despite the decline in manufacturing not an abject failure?

Why is there no mention of the fuels crisis? OR that the biggest nuclear leak in history occured this year at Sellafield and they have no idea how to deal with this at all?

Why the repeated government agitprop on the bombings or on the 2012 Olympics.

Why the biased crap on the inquiries which were - set up by Blair, given his questions and then reviewed and edited before publication - this is why people were upset not because they are unreasonable anti-war fools. This bias cannot stand!

Look at what has happened to the Electoral Commission the last couple of days. They said the elections were gerrymandered. they said the elections were rigged through the postal voting (not a closed ballot, done in front of people, so many old people and young people where pressurised into voting Labour) and the instances of so many immigrants just having their votes collected and done by Labour workers and so many false ones! This THIS was Labour's victory. The Commission said so and now they are being shut down so that we will not know, none of us, even those who are informed, that the next election will be even more rigged.

This must be neutral not damned Labour propaganda - if you want that - turn on the TV. Or - if you must- dispute the site, split it, with 'our truth' and Labour agit prop on the other side - I see who takes off my version and it is usually Labour functionaries - this is simply not acceptable. If this is not neutral or if not neutral - at least BALANCED, then it is worthless and all the Labour functionaries who are editting it should get a grip.

Hickster 11:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Your edits are not NPOV. They are anti-Blair POV and not balanced. I could run through the issues you raise and point out the factual mistakes but don't feel like wasting my time. David | Talk 11:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


Dude, seriously, like I say, you are a Labour technocrat and you see things through Labour rose tinted glasses. If you think you have a point, make it. You can't just flame...if you've got a point make it, if you think I'm wrong prove it, don't just pray to St. Tony and see the blessed Third Way.

The article as it otherwise stands is nothing but Labour propaganda, a puff piece for the leader written by people who gotten rich of the gains of this misbegotten, woeful and corrupt system that is tearing to shreds democracy and human rights. I believe that Blair is a proto type dictator and a wretch, but that is not what I write

so I don't want to hear about the pine fresh coming out of his bung hole.

If you dispute it - prove it or prove yourself a bit naff really.

I guess that may be a personal attack which are disapproved of around here. I'm willing to listen if you want to make a case for your edits but just reverting to them isn't really on. I do not see how anyone can call the sentence "Blair did not press the issue at the G8, perhaps because of the UK's failure to stop emissions growth in line with the Kyoto Protocol and is now believed to think more like Bush on climate change who has opposed the Kyoto Protocol" a neutrally phrased sentence. The edits also contain significant factual problems which I will point out if you need it. David | Talk 22:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I am no fan of Blair but I unhesitatingly prefer "Dbiv's" version, because it is much more encyclopedic (nothing to do with politics), though Hickster's religious bit is interesting, SqueakBox 22:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I can understand David's complaints about the elegance of language. I personally prefer long sentences, I think greater meaning can be conveyed, but I understand and will endeavour to write in a house style,

However - my version is not less biased than the previous comment. The very idea that Blair was or has been doing anything on climate change is ridiculous, if you doubt that then read Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth or anyone else on Blair's achievements - if you noticed, that comment was referenced. While not neutral it was in contrast to the agitprop of the original comment and equally true...

SqueakBox - Blair and religious affairs is a very interesting issue, and in many ways it is underdiscussed. I hope you saw the link - these things have been going on for years, on many, many, levels. The discussion is however silenced. I hope you will take my point, but DAvid. Dbiv, makes a living of these people and what he is writing is simply not fair or balanced. - For a degree of time, my page was standard until it was simply removed. Dbiv is not remodelling either, simply excising and reverting which has been carrying on. I think this page should be disputed if the turth not found

If David thinks he has the points - make the points. But you can't because it's true, but as you know, a man is despised for breaking a fondly held deceit

Hickster 23:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I have never done paid work for the Labour Party. In any case, it's a long held principle that evidence of POV-pushing outside Wikipedia is never evidence of POV-pushing on Wikipedia. David | Talk 23:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

From your summary, you have often tried to gain paid employment from the party and have often done research and work for the party. + working, being elected as Labour in a different part of the country from where you come is, it is, being paid for Labour. So...

What more, there's evidence of you harassing your view all the way back to January of this year at the latest, telling people that your unevidenced, biased view is NPOV and that they should prove their, often legitimate, opinion and even when, as I have done, just ignoring the facts and going back to template. Not adding proven facts, just going back to template. Scandal!

Hickster 23:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I managed to acquire an article on me, although not through my creating it, and I nominated it for deletion when I found it. Against my advice it was kept. Wikipedia does not allow autobiography although I have supplied facts to correct it via the talk page (there are precedents for this). I have on a few occasions applied for jobs from the Labour Party but I've never held one; I have been a Researcher for two separate Labour MPs, but researchers are the employees of the MP and not the Labour Party. What you are going on about in terms of "being elected in a different part of the country from where you come from" is a bit of a mystery - I've lived in Westminster for 10 years and moved there after leaving university. Had I not been living in Westminster I would not have been qualified to be elected anyway, but why does it matter where I was born and brought up? Didn't have much choice in that at the time.
Meanwhile I would ask you to withdraw the charge of 'harassment'. It's not harassment to make an edit and then defend it. In any case my edits from 2004 played some role in this article becoming featured. David | Talk 23:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Good for you, good for you, that's wonderful. Nice of you to explain your importance to me, but it is rather irrelevant. Regardless of whether you are paid from peter or paul, it's the same source, this stuff might wash in westminster, but the people beyond politics know light from dark. You are a councillor on the Labour ticket, through their machine, you have recieved money from the machine. Good. But this is an intimidatory attack. You have used it before several times on different people and beaten them off. Well done. I'm not concerned about how this site was referenced in a rag now used in the third world for lighting fire, no issue - you are Biased. I do not take the charge back you have harassed numerous editors to this site to impose your POV.

The Issue, The issue is - Is this a fair interpretation of Blair? It is not - it is Blair tinted glassed.

It is my belief that Blair is a gibbering, pop-eyed, satanic wretch, who has engaged over an unprecedented period of constitutional attack and endemic corruption, again and again - but I would never possibly dream of saying that - In fact I think Blair banned it.

Hickster 23:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It was westminster council that had the unfortunate record for gerymandering? While that was the other lot, i do hope it did not reflect a trend in the local politics. I have to agree with Hickster, that working for labour MPs instead of for the labour party is almost certainly not a meaningful distinction. While MPs might have a different view to the party they belong to, it is generally not noticeable. Indeed, making such a distinction is rather hair splitting and suggests a deal of spinning is going on. Trying to deny political connections when writing a political article seems unfortunate.

I also have to agree that this is a rather pro-Blair article. While I personally am willing to accept this up to a point, as any Prime minister deserves a certain amount of benefit of the doubt and respect for the office, the article does have a sanitised feel to it. By my reasoning, there ought to be a rather different version waiting in the wings for the day of his retirement.

Without checking the list for myself, I would have to agree with Hickster that Blair has amassed a very impressive list of authoritarian, traditionally right wing and indeed dictatorial acts of parliament to his record. This may simply reflect the old adage that right wing governments pass left wing measures, and vice-versa, but it does not seem to be given proper mention in the article. The slide into both terrorist threat and police state has been quite extraordinary and a direct result of his personal views. Sandpiper 22:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Westminster's Conservative group had in the late 1980s a policy of selling off council houses to try to improve Conservative chances in local elections - but I can't see how that is relevant to me. The point about working for the Labour Party is that it's factually inaccurate to say that I have ever worked for the Labour Party. It's wrong. It's a mistake. I'm not denying my political connections, though, I'm simply pointing out that it's neither here nor there: evidence that someone has a POV outside Wikipedia is never evidence that their edits are POV on Wikipedia. So you can all shut up about this right now because all it does is betray your POV.
Assertions that the article is 'rather pro-Blair' are extremely difficult to deal with in terms of improving the article because they are so extremely vague. You will have to do a bit better than that - point out matters not to Blair's credit which are glossed over but relevant, for instance. But you will never substantiate "dictatorial" and "police state" for that is pure hyperbole. David | Talk 22:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


Okay - first of - I don't like the way David harasses people - it's unpleasant. To repeatedly belittle peoples writing a bollocks and to repeatedly say shut up - it's not cool, not at all.

The details of David's life are just plain boring, but, when you are paid by them and then your writing clearly displays POV - well, it's pretty damn obvious. It may not be obvious to him, but he is blinkered.

As to the article. I made referenced, substantiated points - as many others have which have simply been removed by Dbiv. It's unacceptable. He demands references from others but not from himself. There is so much damn assertion in the article, in its supporting language, in its opinion of the wretched tyrant, so much fawning. Take Northern Ireland for example, where the province now elects radicals opposed to the peace process, where the IRA does £23m bank robberies, where there are street battles lasting a week and you fawn that the process is a success! And you credit Blair with having started the negotiations which is in every manner inaccurate.

Dbiv said he would respond on a point by point basis - he can't, he can just try and belittle. If Dbiv can't see whats happening on the streets, if he can't see that the end of jury trials, the 'people's courts', the on the spot fines, the summary justice, the end of habeus corpus, the end of the presumption of innoc3ence, the 60 day lock ups, the indefinite detention of foreigners, the dispersal zones, the curfews, the banning of demonstrations, the end of freedom of speech, all these things.

Stop looking through the glass and see the world as it is

Hickster 16:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

You make it sound as if david has some super poweras, which he doesn't. he is just another contributor top this article. I recommend working on trying to change the article rather than indulging in pointless personal attacks. That is not the way to change the article. We must have a balanced article which means including botht the good and the bad but not written as if trying to prove a point. We know what blair is like anyway so just write it in the article dispassionately and objectively with attention to detail and without trying to convince the reader he is evil, misguided or whatever. Most of us British people, I suspect, from whichever side of the political spectrum we are, know what we think of Blair, and foreigners can only draw conclusions by a balanced presentation of the facts, SqueakBox 17:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, man, it's like this. I make revisions, with original research, making a point and they get removed. How dispassionate is it to slobber over Blair's 'faith' - ooh, he's so religious, without any quotes, then to excise my remarks about Blair's wicca element.

At the moment it reads like a propaganda piece, reading the talk, any time anyone adds anything different Dbiv (with Squeakbox in support) excises that until the contributor tires of it.

This article should be balanced and you are writing as if I am taking the balance out of it, that's wrong, I was putting the balance back in, then having it just erased for no reason. I'm not writing in the article that Blair is evil, I'm specifically making that point here in the talk page, I believe he is - but I don't write it, and the norm, the supposed NPOV, is the NPOV of people who see a shining halo around the man's head.

I'm not saying that Dbiv has special powers, apart from resilience and a powerful understanding of Prescott style spin which is to harass and belittle other opinions without providing support for his own, his key power here is resilience, what is clear is that the article is not neutral and if Wikipedia is not neutral it is kind of pointless.

Hickster 15:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The only real difference is that David and I have been enough at wikipedia to get a sense of how the place works more than you. As I say, keep trying to change the article but do so in a balanced way, remembering that some of those who dislike Blair find him too leftie and others that he has betrayed the left, SqueakBox 17:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, looking through, many of the changes are there, so...well, I hear you. I don't think the argument is really left vs right. The left seemed to give up, it seems all state services are now state commissioned rather than state run. The real thing is this combination of puritanism, endless government rules, so many new dictatorial laws and well - lying. just pure dishonesty. These Benthamites are just cruel, paving us with blue laws, for the greater good. Hickster 23:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

New age and Northern Ireland

The section on 'New Age' allegations has absolutely no relevance to Tony. It is relevant to Cherie if neutrally phrased (the section Hickster keeps insisting on inserting does not record the fact that Downing Street has said it's rubbish). With regard to Northern Ireland, the suspension (not dissolution) of the Northern Ireland Assembly took place in October 2002 and therefore in the second term. I've tightened up the wording. There should perhaps be something in the third term about decommissioning actually taking place. David | Talk 16:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

If you follow my link, the allegations do go to Blair - as much as the Catholic element does. The allegations started with cash for flats, and is finished in both Scott and Prices books. Y'know, Blair's healing baths, the little piece of paper he carries in his breast pocket, or further, that he consults numerologists on days to announce policies, or even what those policies should be. Perhaps, yes, it should be noted that these allegations are denied. I think it does have relevance to tyrant tony too. Hickster 23:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Right, you've been here long enough to know how to format talk page contribs by now. I did follow the link and found nothing that claimed that Tony had participated. I also checked Lance Price's book and that failed to mention anything about the issue. The key test for whether something gets into a biographical article is whether the concept has a significant impact on the career of the subject or on the perception of the subject. This item does not pass that test. David | Talk 00:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
huh. well, maybe not Price, then. But regardless of whether the Downing St. Despots say it is false or not (afterall, even Gordon Brown does not believe a word they say), it is still widely acknowledged, ever since Cherie's corrupt flatgate affair. As to Tony "Mr Blair always keeps a grey velvet pouch in his breast pocket. It contains a small piece of red ribbon and a piece of rolled-up paper. Even his closest advisers do not know its significance, but he cannot operate without it." - that's just one of the points. Pretty significant. Afterall if he claims to be a dogmatic Christian, he must consider this evil and thus an aspect of himself to be evil. It seems pretty obvious this is significant eg. election date 05/05/05, speech to the European Parliament on his European destiny - 21/06/06 - under the harvest moon, the guy is riddled with it.
Besides - much of the rest of the article fails your test - and - well, if something is significant, but little known - then is it not edifying and important to include it, even if it shows your hero in a bad light? Hickster 03:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Hickster is right! This page is soo biased. It needs NPOV, not fake NPOV like Dbiv Truthtrooper
The election was held on May 5, 2005 because this was the date already established for county council elections; the European Parliament set the date for their part-session which came immediately before the handover of the rotating Presidency. I really think you should have a glass of water and lie down in a darkened room, and wait until your delusions abate. And incidentally, there is no User:Truthtrooper. David | Talk 22:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay then, 05/05/05 was numeroligically chosen for local elections and then agreed upon for general. Everyone knew it would be that day. As to Blair's speech with all its reverse biblical imagery (the people circling within the walls of Jericho) well...okay. Maybe the wicca stuff is just aledged. But even died in the wool Labour MPs will tell you that Blair is a truthless, touthless imaginatively starved, proto-tyrant who seems to think that quick government is better than reasoned government and order is superior to democracy.
Also: stop Prescott-talk, 'grr-ahm-gonna-hit-ya' harassing. Deal with the truth. Deal with it. Deal with all the allegation above...You can't!. + truthtrooper is a wicked awesome guy with much wisdom. I'm sure he does not like to be maligned. He's very real, probably, and is definitely not me at work, oh no. ridiculous. Hickster 00:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
No, the county council elections were always going to be on the 5th of May in 2005 because they have always been on the first Thursday in May for the past thirty years. Your POV on Tony Blair is boring me, and there is still no User:Truthtrooper: see Special:Contributions/Truthtrooper. The edit to this page that was signed User:Truthtrooper was made by 87.80.66.12 (talk • contribs). David | Talk 00:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Alright, I agree, I'm bored of this. This is boring me now. No fun really. I've looked at the other encyclopedias and yes, this article is very appropriate, in fact in comparison with the others, it is pretty good and indepth. - As to my POV, it has become apparent in this discussion and is here for all to see. That is more than sufficient, to demonstrate potential negative opinion and thus, potential range of opinion, and in that context the meaning of neutrality in text, what was taken as impartial was, in its support of the mindview of the government, actually biased.

My job is done. My superhero powers are needed elsewhere. Hickster 01:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/n/Talk%7ETony_Blair_Archive_2_e164.html"