Talk:Tony Blair

Note that this peer review referred to something like this version which was indeed POV, but that the POV was soon removed. David | Talk 22:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2

Predecessors vs predecessor

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

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

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

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

NPOV (overwhelming public opposition) ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Degree

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

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

Small Edit

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

AfD/Vandalism

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

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

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

Criticisms by the left

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

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

On 'spin' and the Clinton campaign

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

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

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

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

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

The inappropriateness of edits by 87.74.12.83

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reason for education of children at Oratory School

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

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

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

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

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

New Photo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labour's policy on PFI schemes while in opposition

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

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

Tony Blair is not Scottish

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

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

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

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

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

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

71.246.209.4 10:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tony Blair: Rock Star

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

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

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

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

Impeachment

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

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

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

Thanks, I hadn't seen it. It seems rather POV at the moment. Surely the fact that an impeachment movement was even started, however unlikely it is to succeed, is relevant to his biography? Guinnog 04:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Guardian article

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

Born Again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Benefits for Blair

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

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

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

Eiler7 23:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Religion

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

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

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

The deal

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

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

The G word

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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