Talk:Tony Blair

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. Dbiv 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. Dbiv 19:40, 8 Feb 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. Dbiv 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. Dbiv 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. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(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. Dbiv 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. Dbiv 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. Dbiv 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. Dbiv 14:52, 9 May 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 File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | 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 File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | 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)

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. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(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 File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | 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 File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | 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 File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | 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 File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | 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 File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | 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 File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | 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 File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | 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 File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | 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?

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 File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | 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 File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | 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 File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | 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 File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | 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)

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 File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | 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)