Talk:Tony Blair: Difference between revisions
Rcpaterson (talk | contribs) |
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Tony Blair/Archive 9) (bot |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header|search=y}} |
|||
{{featured}} |
|||
{{ |
{{Controversial}} |
||
{{British English}} |
|||
{{WPBiography|class=FA|importance=High|living=yes|politician-work-group=yes|activepol=yes}} |
|||
{{Article history|action1=FAC |
|||
{{WPCD-People}} |
|||
|action1date=11:00, 19 Dec 2004 |
|||
{{Mainpage date|July 28|2005}} |
|||
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tony Blair/archive1 |
|||
{{onlinesource2004|section=September |
|||
|action1result=promoted |
|||
|title=U.K.'s Blair Might Risk Revisiting Euro Question: Mark Gilbert |
|||
|action1oldid=8616335 |
|||
|org=Bloomberg News |
|||
|date=September 9, 2004 |
|||
|url=http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_gilbert&sid=a_Jp1ap5wYvk}} |
|||
{{talkheader}} |
|||
{{external peer review | date = February 12, 2006| org = The Independent | comment = "It is opinionated and written from an anti-war point of view"}} |
|||
Note that this peer review referred to something like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Blair&oldid=39254202 this version] which was indeed POV, but that the POV was soon removed. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 22:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
|action2=FAR |
|||
{| class="infobox" width="270px" |
|||
|action2date=21:09, 26 May 2006 |
|||
|- |
|||
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Tony Blair |
|||
!align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br/>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]] |
|||
|action2result=kept |
|||
---- |
|||
|action2oldid=55292605 |
|||
|- |
|||
| [[Talk:Tony Blair/Archive|Archive 1]] |
|||
| [[Talk:Tony Blair/Archive 2|Archive 2]] |
|||
|}<!--Template:Archivebox--> |
|||
|action3=FAR |
|||
==Predecessors vs predecessor== |
|||
|action3date=20:25, 19 June 2007 |
|||
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 |
|||
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tony Blair/archive1 |
|||
|action3result=removed |
|||
|action3oldid=139261256 |
|||
|action4=GAN |
|||
*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? [[User:Deskana|Deskana]] <small>[[User_Talk:Deskana|(talk)]]</small> 19:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
|action4date=13:17, 4 July 2007 |
|||
|action4link=Talk:Tony_Blair/Archive 5#GA |
|||
|action4result=not listed |
|||
|action4oldid=142396156 |
|||
|action5=GAN |
|||
**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. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 20:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
|action5date=18:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
|action5link=Talk:Tony Blair/GA1 |
|||
|action5result=not listed |
|||
|action5oldid=424712233 |
|||
|maindate=July 28, 2005 |
|||
***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 |
|||
|currentstatus=FFA |
|||
}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|class=B|vital=yes|living=yes|listas=Blair, Tony|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-priority=High|politician-work-group=yes}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Law|importance=low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Business|importance=low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject England|importance=Top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Scotland|importance=High}} |
|||
{{WikiProject University of Oxford|importance=low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=Top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=high}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Organized Labour| importance =High| AOTD =| featurebox =| inmedia =}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Press|collapsed=yes|author=[[Stephen Foley]] |date=2009-02-03 |url=http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/is-wikipedia-cracking-up-1625816.html|title=Is Wikipedia cracking up?|org=[[Irish Independent]] |section=February 2009 |
|||
|section2=September|title2=U.K.'s Blair Might Risk Revisiting Euro Question: Mark Gilbert|org2=Bloomberg News|date2=September 9, 2004|url2=http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_gilbert&sid=a_Jp1ap5wYvk}} |
|||
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|||
{{Annual report|[[Wikipedia:2007 Top 50 Report|2007]]}} |
|||
==NPOV (overwhelming public opposition) ?== |
|||
{{external peer review | date = February 12, 2006| org = The Independent | comment = "It is opinionated and written from an anti-war point of view." |
|||
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. [[User:PeterGrecian|PeterGrecian]] 12:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
-Note that this peer review referred to something like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Blair&oldid=39254202 this version] which was indeed POV, but that the POV was soon removed. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 22:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)}} |
|||
}}{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|||
|counter = 9 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|||
|algo = old(365d) |
|||
|archive = Talk:Tony Blair/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}} |
|||
== Can we hyperlink Sir? == |
|||
: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. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 12:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Can we hyperlink the prefix sir in front of his name? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Edward Jocob Philip Smith|Edward Jocob Philip Smith]] ([[User talk:Edward Jocob Philip Smith#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Edward Jocob Philip Smith|contribs]]) 19:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Come on, give this man a decent picture == |
|||
::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. [[User:PeterGrecian|PeterGrecian]] 12:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
The current one shown on top of this article is putting him in an unfavourable light. [[Special:Contributions/2003:DA:C708:FD00:5110:951:3DE4:1F7E|2003:DA:C708:FD00:5110:951:3DE4:1F7E]] ([[User talk:2003:DA:C708:FD00:5110:951:3DE4:1F7E|talk]]) 04:02, 13 November 2023 (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) [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 12:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:How so? It's the EU's portrait of him as special envoy. ‑‑[[User:Neveselbert|Neveselbert]] ([[User talk:Neveselbert|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Neveselbert|contribs]] <b>·</b> [[Special:EmailUser/Neveselbert|email]]) 15:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::Cool, it's been good collaborating with you. [[User:PeterGrecian|PeterGrecian]] 12:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::If you look at the discussions above and in the archive, the current infobox image does not have a huge fan club. The problem is lack of consensus for what should replace it.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 17:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::: a practical difference between a protestations and protest. I don't agree with protests being the default word these days.[http://paularizzuto.blogspot.com][[User:33crackle|33crackle]] 09:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::It's the best-quality portrait available of Blair on Commons. The idea that it puts him "in an unfavourable light" is utterly ridiculous. ‑‑[[User:Neveselbert|Neveselbert]] ([[User talk:Neveselbert|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Neveselbert|contribs]] <b>·</b> [[Special:EmailUser/Neveselbert|email]]) 20:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2023 == |
|||
An independent reviewer form The Independent newspaper says that this article is not NPOV as it is 'opinionated and written from an anti-war point of view'. May I suggest that the phrase 'invasion of Iraq' is replaced with Iraq War. 'Invasion' is not NPOV. When I changed this though the anti-war brigade changed it back. |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|Tony Blair|answered=Yes}} |
|||
I'm not particularly anti-war, but it was an invasion! How else would you describe it? ('''Please''' don't say liberation, I might cry... :P ) [[User:Help plz|Help plz]] |
|||
Request to add {{Iraq War}} under {{Navboxes|title=Tony Blair navigational boxes|list1= |
|||
{{Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom}} |
|||
{{Leaders of the Opposition UK}} |
|||
{{Blair Cabinet}} |
|||
{{Shadow Home Secretaries}} |
|||
{{United Kingdom general election, 2005A}} |
|||
{{UK Labour Party}} |
|||
{{New Labour}} |
|||
{{Labour Party leadership election, 1994}} |
|||
{{Members of the Order of the Garter}} |
|||
{{Charlemagne Prize recipients}} |
|||
{{Presidents of the European Council}} |
|||
{{Quartet on the Middle East}} |
|||
{{Africa Progress Panel}} |
|||
{{Commission for Africa}} |
|||
}} |
|||
. [[Special:Contributions/223.25.74.34|223.25.74.34]] ([[User talk:223.25.74.34|talk]]) 13:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:{{not done}}: The war and various aspects of it are already linked-to in the article. |
|||
== Tony Blair Rock Opera? == |
|||
Indeed. Even the Normandy Landings are sometimes referred to as an 'invasion', despite their ultimate goal of removing German forces from French soil, and then going home. 'Invasion', despite its connotations, essentially remains a descriptive term for a form of military operation, not a comment on the reasons for it. |
|||
Under portrayals, it might be worth mentioning that Harry Hill created a rock opera that toured the UK in 2023: [https://tonyblairrockopera.co.uk]https://tonyblairrockopera.co.uk [[Special:Contributions/86.27.111.130|86.27.111.130]] ([[User talk:86.27.111.130|talk]]) 13:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
==Degree== |
|||
:Added. [[User:Jonathan Deamer|Jonathan Deamer]] ([[User talk:Jonathan Deamer|talk]]) 14:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Persistent unsourced additions == |
|||
:A second class degree. Oxford did not divide its seconds at the time. See John Rentoul's biography at page 52. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 23:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
@[[User:Jambo5555|Jambo5555]] - Do you have a source for your claims that Blair is placed "in the top teir {{sic}} of [[Historical rankings of prime ministers of the United Kingdom|British prime ministers]]" or that he "often ranks highly" in historical rankings of them? You've failed to provide one in eight edits and your vague gesturing to "historians, other scholars, the public, journalists and MPs" in your edit summary catastrophically fails [[WP:V]]. [[User:Tim O'Doherty|Tim O'Doherty]] ([[User talk:Tim O'Doherty|talk]]) 21:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
it did divide them, I got an upper, tis on my degree certificate chum! Why are you so intent on distorting this man's abilities? |
|||
:Hi Tim, |
|||
When did you get your degree? My recollection is back then that they did not seperate them either (leading to many [[Yes, Minister]] jokes on the matter. [[User:Help plz|Help plz]] |
|||
:let's sort this out. Sorry for 'gesturing' and 'catastrophically failing'. I'm judging 'ranking highly' as top ten, but you can dispute that. |
|||
:Academics: |
|||
:November 2004, https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/rating-british-prime-ministers. Tony Blair ranked 6th. |
|||
:August 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5294024.stm. Tony Blair ranked 3rd. |
|||
:August 2010, https://web.archive.org/web/20100806030353/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7923790/Gordon-Brown-third-worst-PM-since-1945-poll-of-historians-finds.html. Tony Blair ranked 3rd. |
|||
:October 2016, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-worst-prime-minister-ranking-third-since-ww2-a7358171.html. Tony Blair ranked 3rd. |
|||
:July 2021, https://theconversation.com/theresa-may-joint-worst-post-war-prime-minister-say-historians-and-politics-professors-in-new-survey-163912. Tony Blair ranked 3rd. |
|||
:Public (admittedly, these are breif and not recently published): |
|||
:June 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/6242715.stm. Blair ranked 3rd. |
|||
:October 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7647383.stm. Blair ranked 6th. |
|||
:Journalistic: Doesn't rank highly, I shouldn't have listed that. |
|||
:Members of Parliament: |
|||
:May 2015, http://politicsblog.ac.uk/2015/05/05/the-prime-ministerial-ratings-game-a-parliamentary-perspective/. Blair ranked 3rd. |
|||
:I'm sorry that I made unsourced edits. I assumed that the 'historical rankings of prime ministers' wikipedia article would be sufficent reference. I honestly believe this is relevant to a overview of Blair's position as prime minister, and within the wider context of British politics. I'm sorry you're taking issue with this, I'm not out to execute a imposition of a Tony Blair wikipedia page, I just tried to make a edit I honestly though would be helpful. |
|||
:Thanks. [[User:Jambo5555|Jambo5555]] ([[User talk:Jambo5555|talk]]) 21:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Some of these are a bit iffy, like politicsblog and theconversation. Some, like ''The Independent'', are good. If you want to add that, you can put it in the article body itself rather than in the lead. PS: I personally like Blair. I don't like unverified info. That's what I'm taking issue with: not you. [[User:Tim O'Doherty|Tim O'Doherty]] ([[User talk:Tim O'Doherty|talk]]) 21:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Okay fair enough. Sorry for being a bit of a dick, I've had a really bad day. |
|||
:::I think I'm just going to leave it. I get what you're saying, certainly politiicsblog isn't a good source, and like you say historical rankings are a bit sporadic and patchy. [[User:Jambo5555|Jambo5555]] ([[User talk:Jambo5555|talk]]) 21:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::No worries. All the best for the future {{emdash}} [[User:Tim O'Doherty|Tim O'Doherty]] ([[User talk:Tim O'Doherty|talk]]) 21:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Image == |
||
I know this has been discussed many a time but I think we should have an image for when he was in office probably a photo used in the [[2005 United Kingdom general election]] infobox as it is an up to date image for when he was in office. [[User:RealTaxiDriver|RealTaxiDriver]] ([[User talk:RealTaxiDriver|talk]]) 20:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
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. [[User:BlueKangaroo|BlueKangaroo]]. |
|||
:TBH I'm not a fan of [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tony_Blair_WEF_(cropped).jpg Tony Blair WEF (cropped)]. This is another photo where he is pulling a weird face, and it would be better to have one with a more natural expression.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 08:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== AfD/Vandalism == |
|||
:He actually {{em|was}} in office in 2010, the time of the current image, as special envoy. ‑‑[[User:Neveselbert|Neveselbert]] ([[User talk:Neveselbert|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Neveselbert|contribs]] <b>·</b> [[Special:EmailUser/Neveselbert|email]]) 19:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
The AfD is obvious vandalism. The nonsense at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Blair]] is further evidence of this. --[[User:Jwinters|Jwinters]] | [[User talk:Jwinters|Talk]] 19:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::It wasn't his main office. For instant [[David Miliband]] has portraits whilst he is President of the [[International Rescue Committee]] but he still has his 2007-2010 portrait. [[User:RealTaxiDriver|RealTaxiDriver]] ([[User talk:RealTaxiDriver|talk]]) 20:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::He does? I've looked at [[c:Category:David Miliband]], and I can't find a portrait of him as president. ‑‑[[User:Neveselbert|Neveselbert]] ([[User talk:Neveselbert|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Neveselbert|contribs]] <b>·</b> [[Special:EmailUser/Neveselbert|email]]) 17:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I meant that there are photos of him when he was in office. [[User:RealTaxiDriver|RealTaxiDriver]] ([[User talk:RealTaxiDriver|talk]]) 09:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Not portraits, though. ‑‑[[User:Neveselbert|Neveselbert]] ([[User talk:Neveselbert|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Neveselbert|contribs]] <b>·</b> [[Special:EmailUser/Neveselbert|email]]) 19:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Hyperlink Sir? == |
|||
Also, the user vandalised my talk page after I put a keep comment on the AfD[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=81.77.63.159]--[[User:Jwinters|Jwinters]] | [[User talk:Jwinters|Talk]] 19:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC) |
|||
If the right honourable is hyperlinked, shouldn't the '''Sir''' Prefix be as well? [[User:Edward Jocob Philip Smith|Edward Jocob Philip Smith]] ([[User talk:Edward Jocob Philip Smith|talk]]) 19:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:No because people generally know what "Sir" means in this context. <span style="color:DarkGray">...</span> [[User:discospinster|<span style="color:DarkOrange">'''disco'''</span><span style="color: #556B2F">'''''spinster'''''</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:discospinster|'''<span style="color:DarkGray">talk</span>''']]</sub> 21:22, 11 April 2024 (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, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 20:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== ''In fiction and satire'' == |
|||
:: The left are not a small minority if the political spectrum. Presumably for you to make such a comment you are from the US. The Labour Party is a left wing party and Tony Blair is its leader. Criticism from the left, which he is supposed to represent, therefore seems extremely relevant. |
|||
Please add the following to the subsection ''Blair in fiction and satire'': |
|||
The minimum wage is clearly and demonstrably progressive in the economic sense, eg: 'progressive taxation'. --[[User:Dazzla|Dazzla]] 23:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:''Director [[Terry Gilliam]] and his co-screenwriter [[Charles McKeown]] have stated that the character of Tony Shepard, a dubious entrepreneur and conman who turns out to be involved in illegal organ harvesting from impoverished children, in Gilliam's film ''[[The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus]]'' (2009) is based on "a certain Tony B. Liar", who "would say the most insane things and probably he'd believe them himself".<ref>{{cite magazine |first=Dan |last=Jolin |title=A Film by Heath Ledger and Friends... |magazine=[[Empire (magazine)|Empire]] |date=March 2009 |pages=109–113}}</ref><ref>Randell, Karen (2013). ''The Cinema of Terry Gilliam'', Columbia University Press, ISBN 9780231850384, pp. 145-149</ref>'' |
|||
:::nah. progressive taxation means increasing the tax burden on the rich compared to regressive taxation which relatively increases taxation upon people of below median income. Dazzla is wrong, because there is no proof beyond political argument that a minimum wage does actually increase the living standards or earning potential or the poor, mainly it impacts upon people like paperboys and 2nd it is not progressive when it is coupled with the UK's biggest ever immigration wave ruthlessly and relentless forcing down wages. [[User:194.112.58.29|194.112.58.29]] 02:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
--[[Special:Contributions/2003:DA:CF04:925:E8C9:37BF:66C0:7591|2003:DA:CF04:925:E8C9:37BF:66C0:7591]] ([[User talk:2003:DA:CF04:925:E8C9:37BF:66C0:7591|talk]]) 13:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
"Criticisms by the left" are relevant in that the Bennite Left is where Mr Blair appeared to start his political journey when he was first selected and elected. When people like Roy Hattersley were getting lots of abuse for (in my view) trying to keep the Labour Party affiliated to the real world, Blair was seemingly in the opposite camp - as were many of the people who later became leading lights in New Labour. I have no objection to politicians changing their minds, if they admit it and give reasons. But as a former active member of the Labour Party, I do wonder what, if anything, these people truly believed then and believe now. [[User:Sasha clarkson|Sasha]] 21:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist talk}} |
|||
== Shouldn't "Sir" be a prefix? == |
|||
Most other pages I see, such as those of Sir [[John Major]], Sir [[Alan Lascelles]], Sir [[David Attenborough]], Sir [[Vince Cable]], and Sir [[Laurie Bristow]] have it as a prefix. The edit claims it was edited "As per the very detailed detailed on the template and MOS talk pages" but does not claim which one. Back to prefix? |
|||
:I think you're slightly overstating the case - Blair was never a down-the-line Bennite, being always in favour of UK membership of the EEC, for example. But in substance this is correct and an interesting observation: the intellectual mainspring of 'new Labour' came not from the Labour right but from what was in the 1980s called the 'soft left'. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 21:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Edward Jocob Philip Smith|Edward Jocob Philip Smith]] ([[User talk:Edward Jocob Philip Smith|talk]]) 10:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Look up the MOS talk archives and the infobox talk page - the fact that you failed to do this basic bit of due diligence is telling. [[User:Atchom|Atchom]] ([[User talk:Atchom|talk]]) 10:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==On 'spin' and the Clinton campaign== |
|||
::If a user is going to back up their edit by reference to a discussion elsewhere, the very least they can do is indicate where that discussion is. The onus to is on those wishing to make the edit, and the fact you failed to do this (and have ''still'' failed to do this) is very telling. --[[User:Escape_Orbit|<span style="color: green;">Escape Orbit</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]</sup> 12:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
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." [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 23:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::Or you could have looked up the references I provided. I'm even going to link them here to make it easier for you. [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2024 archive]] and [[Template talk:Infobox person]] and numerous examples where this was litigated on article talk pages and consensus was for Sir to be in name such as [[Talk:Ben Key]]. This issue has been repeatedly litigated since last year and even before that, as a result of a couple of obsessed editors manually changing thousands of infoboxes without consensus, then using this fait accompli ([[Wikipedia:Fait accompli]] for their position. It is disappointing that such an experienced editor as yourself should be unable to look up basic facts relating to the dispute. [[User:Atchom|Atchom]] ([[User talk:Atchom|talk]]) 12:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::@[[User:Atchom|Atchom]] This is the first time you have provided anything. It's not my. or anyone's, responsibility to go searching for things you hint at. Especially when you're demanding people find something that simply isn't there. Having looked at the pages you have linked, I see no consensus or style guideline on either choice. So for you to claim that either are to be found on these talk pages is totally misleading. The format used here has existed since Blair was knighted in 2022 (you also changed it back then, before being reverted), so claiming this is part of a nefarious edit campaign across multiple articles also doesn't wash. |
|||
::::So that leaves it as a matter that can be decided on this article alone. Not ideal, it would be good if there was direction given either on the template or MOS. It would prevent a lot of unproductive edit warring on the matter. But there isn't. |
|||
::::Personally, I have no strong feelings about the matter. Although I do not believe that someone changes their name when they accept a knighthood. They just adopt a title that some people may wish to use before their name. It's a title, not a name. No different from Reverend, or Missus, or Professor, or Doctor. People's name don't change when they adopt any of those, so why should Sir be different? With that in mind, I don't see any convincing argument for Sir being in the Name field of the infobox, and not in the honorific prefix field. [[User:Escape_Orbit|<span style="color: green;">Escape Orbit</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]</sup> 20:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::MOS calls for "Sir" to be bolded with the other components of the name at the first mention. That's a pretty good indicator that for MOS purposes Sir is to be treated as part of the name. I note that the "name" in the infobox is bolded whereas the "prefix" field is not. |
|||
:::::In 2022 there was a very persistent editor (who went on a site-wide rampage and unilaterally changed thousands of pages as well as the template documentation) who moved "Sir" to prefix. In the case of some pages, "Sir" had been under "name" for decades. |
|||
:::::I believe that the discussions I pinpointed clearly shows that the weight of considered opinion favours Sir as part of the infobox field for name. There was no formal RfC, but clearly the weight of the opinions expressed went to one side. |
|||
:::::As to your arguments, they have been addressed in the very long discussions I cited. You haven't addressed the counter-arguments. I'm therefore to be [[Wikipedia:Be bold|Bold]] and change it. If you disagree, please feel free to launch a full discussion, flagging the wider community as well. [[User:Atchom|Atchom]] ([[User talk:Atchom|talk]]) 01:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::There is ''already'' a full discussion, which you are right in the middle of. This article was not part of any "site-wide rampage". You have repeated this edit twice now, you ''know'' do not have consensus for it, so claiming it is others' responsibility to "launch discussion" while you again change the article to your preference, is not "being bold", it is edit warring. --[[User:Escape_Orbit|<span style="color: green;">Escape Orbit</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]</sup> 16:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:For posterity, I record here that [[User:Edward Jocob Philip Smith|Edward Jocob Philip Smith]] has been blocked for sockpuppetry. [[User:Atchom|Atchom]] ([[User talk:Atchom|talk]]) 01:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I would urge those edit warring over this to stop it and discuss the matter here. I'd also like to ask those quoting a MOS guideline regarding where "Sir" should beto please link to it. I can't find anything that unambiguously addresses infobox placement. Thanks. --[[User:Escape_Orbit|<span style="color: green;">Escape Orbit</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]</sup> 14:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:It would be a good idea to source such claims in the article. It seems like a simplistic characterisation [[User:87.74.12.83|87.74.12.83]] 00:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:Please don't accuse me of edit warring without evidence. I made two edits over almost two weeks to this page. Edward Jocob Philip Smith has been gatekeeping this page and others and you didn't think it fit to say anything. [[User:Atchom|Atchom]] ([[User talk:Atchom|talk]]) 10:51, 19 May 2024 (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. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 00:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::My evidence is that you have simply repeated the same edit twice, joining in with edits of others that have been reverted, with no attempt to discuss or explain. [[WP:3RR|That is edit warring]]. Other users have been restoring the page to what it was before, in the light of no consensus for it changing. --[[User:Escape_Orbit|<span style="color: green;">Escape Orbit</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]</sup> 12:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::The fact that there are alot of editors who disagree with the forced status quo shows a lack of consensus for having it separated. [[User:Nford24|Nford24]] ([[User Talk:Nford24|PE121 Personnel Request Form]]) 02:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Consensus on infobox image == |
|||
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? [[User:82.9.36.7|82.9.36.7]] 06:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Tony Blair, 2002 (cropped).jpg|150px|right]] |
|||
Considering the fact that [[Gordon Brown]] and [[Keir Starmer]] both have official portraits as their infobox images, I think we should use an image of Tony Blair taken during his premiership. Not doing so would be like using a recent image of [[John Major]] for his infobox. So, I'd like to establish a consensus once and for all. IMO, the best choice would be this one. Thoughts? --[[User:ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter|ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter]] ([[User talk:ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter|talk]]) 15:13, 7 July 2024 (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 [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]]), nor should it speculate about something which is suspected without any direct evidence (because that would conflict with [[WP:NOR|No original research]]). [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 09:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:This has been discussed before. I'm not a great fan of the current infobox image, and would go for [https://imgur.com/a/Oug8ngr this one] which is on Commons, but there needs to be a clear consensus before changing the infobox image. The image on the right isn't brilliant.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 15:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Blair&diff=prev&oldid=1233154342 this edit] you have changed the infobox image without establishing a talk page consensus. You have also said "Article A has this, so Article B should have it as well" which you have been told before is not a valid argument. You are editing articles about Labour at a frantic pace and without establishing consensus for key edits.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 15:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::it is quite obvious that Blair and Bush 'prey' together, they preyed on Iraq, they prey on truth, they prey on decency, they prey on freedom, not they're preying on Iran. [[User:194.112.58.29|194.112.58.29]] 02:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Biographies of living persons tend to include recent images of them, and when they die they are changed to an image of them during the height of their fame/importance. I think a more recent image of Blair should be used. |
|||
:P.S. There has long been a sentiment in the John Major talk page that the image used in his infobox is too grainy, old, and the angle doesn't show his face well enough. [[User:Maurnxiao|Maurnxiao]] ([[User talk:Maurnxiao|talk]]) 16:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==The inappropriateness of edits by [[Special:Contributions/87.74.12.83|87.74.12.83]]== |
|||
:I agree with both of your points. --[[User:ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter|ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter]] ([[User talk:ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter|talk]]) 16:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
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. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|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. [[User:87.74.12.83|87.74.12.83]] 01:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::absolutely, 'authoritarianism' refers to a raft of measures and attitude from Blair that have undermined the democracy and human rights in this country. It is ridiculous to say that this article is NPOV. I spent a long time on here last year trying to correct 'David's' bias, but it is just right back again. I think David should be barred from editting this page, he consistently makes it pro-Blair without even realising as he see everything through a rosy pro-blair paradigm. He should be banned, because he admits that his income as a Labour councillor is dependant upon building support for Labour. He cannot be neutral and is an awful troll |
|||
[[User:194.112.58.157|194.112.58.157]] 03:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Reason for education of children at Oratory School == |
|||
Re sentences: 'Euan and Nicky attended the London Oratory School in Fulham where they could be educated in accordance with the Catholic faith of their mother. When this decision was announced, Tony Blair was criticised for rejecting schools in Islington, where he then lived.' This could be understood as implying that Islington has no Catholic secondary schools, and that the decision was made mainly or entirely on religious grounds. In fact, Islington has a Catholic boys' school that Mr. Blair's children could have attended (St Aloysius College). It is of interest that the most recent Ofsted inspection report for this school states that: 'The school is failing to provide a satisfactory education for its pupils'. |
|||
This is not an attempt to make a partisan point. I recognise the difficulty of maintaining Wikipedian objectivity in biographies of contemporary politicians, but the complexity and difficulty of the Blair family's choice might be better represented at this point in the article. |
|||
For a list of schools in Inslington, see the local education authority website: http://www.islington.gov.uk/Education/SchoolYears/15.asp |
|||
For the Ofsted report, see www.ofsted.gov.uk/reports/100/100459.pdf |
|||
:All very interesting, but good to see that the point is properly made in the article now. I was [[Talk:Tony_Blair/Archive_2#Children.27s_Education|roundly beaten around the head]] a while back by Sqeakbox and Dbiv for suggesting the same. The roundabout continues to spin --[[User:84.69.34.161|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. |
|||
[[User:Clarkefreak|Clarkefreak]] [[User talk:Clarkefreak|∞]] 23:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
: Thanks, it was {{vandal|K8Whitaker}}. He's blocked now, but as this is (at least) the second account of his this evening, he'll probably be back. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 23:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
: Scratch that...its now a Hyundai... [[User:Clarkefreak|Clarkefreak]] [[User talk: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? [[User:Clarkefreak|Clarkefreak]] [[User talk:Clarkefreak|∞]] 23:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::Think you need to be an admin to have access to the revert tool, Clarkefreak. - [[User:Wezzo|Wezzo]] 08:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::here you go: [[Wikipedia:Revert]].--[[User:Alhutch|Alhutch]] 08:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Labour's policy on PFI schemes while in opposition == |
|||
The recent edit by [[User:Cynical|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. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|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!([[User:StudentSteve|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? [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 09:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*** In Europe, perhaps. In the Americas, however, nationality is actually defined by your place of birth. Any person born e.g. in the United States is a U.S. citizen under the 14th amendment, irrespective of the nationality of his/her parents. Incidentally, I don't understand the concept of "Scottish nationality" anyway. Scotland is not a sovereign nation, but rather a constituent part of the UK. Therefore, there is no such thing as "Scottish nationality" in international law. In fact, I believe there is no such thing as "Scottish nationality" under British domestic law either. |
|||
**** However, I am sure the scottish would like independance, alot of the scottish people I know always state explicitly that they are Scottish not British. He is Scottish, He was born in Scotland. He also was part of the "Scottish Crowd" (along with people like Gordan Brown) in the run up to the 1997 election, this and all of his (and his governments) Pro-Scottish policies incline one to believe that he is scottish. |
|||
:::::People who say that they are "Scottish not British" are simply mistaken. It doesn't matter what you think you are, it's a matter of constitutional legal arrangement. Scotland is a constituent part of Britain, and has been since 1707. I could claim I was "British not European" but I'd be similarly mistaken. Besides, they're British enough when they're receiving £1,500-a-head per year from the Treasury in subsidies. [[User:JF Mephisto|JF Mephisto]] 13:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::::If you are born in Scotland, you are Scottish. Full Stop. |
|||
:::::::Rubbish. British definitions of nationality are differnt from American. It is based primarily on parentage, not birthplace. Wherever you are born in the world, if it is to British parents, then you can claim to be British. Some people prefer to refer to themselves as Scotish, but the are still also British, just like English people are.[[User:Matthewfelgate|Matthewfelgate]] 12:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Scottish== |
|||
Just so you know, Scottish would nowadays appear on the Passport or Birth certificate, but they would be a "British National." Tony Blair is not Scottish, fact. |
|||
I removed the "Scottish politicians" category. Yes, he was born in Scotland, but he isn't Scottish. An analogy for you: |
|||
Keanu Reeves's mother was British and his father was Hawaiian\Chinese. He was born in Lebanon, but was raised in Canada. Hence, the article on [[Keanu Reeves]] says he is "British-Canadian." Not Lebanese. |
|||
Tony Blair's father was English and his mother was Irish. He was born in Scotland, but was raised in England. Hence, Tony Blair is English, not Scottish. Neither of his parents were Scottish and he was not raised in Scotland, therefore he is not Scottish. |
|||
If, however, you believe that being arbitrarily born in Scotland makes one Scottish, then I shall have to ask that you edit the Wiki on Keanu Reeves to explain that he is Lebanese, because he was born in Beirut. |
|||
[[User:71.246.209.4|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 [http://politics.guardian.co.uk/scotland/comment/0,9236,1440521,00.html], 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. [[User:Robdurbar|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). [[User:IainP|IainP]] [[User talk: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. [[User:Timrollpickering|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. --<font color="2B7A2B">[[User:Cactus.man|Cactus<b>.</b>man]]</font> <font size="4">[[User talk:Cactus.man|✍]]</font> 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. [[User:JackofOz|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]]. --<font color="2B7A2B">[[User:Cactus.man|Cactus<b>.</b>man]]</font> <font size="4">[[User talk:Cactus.man|✍]]</font> 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. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Terence Ong]] <sup>[[User talk:Terenceong1992|Talk]]</sup> 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. [[User:Rockpocket|Rockpocket]] 06:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Actually his mother was [[Ulster Scots]] but lets not confuse things eh :D [[User:Arniep|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, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 14:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:All three of my children were born in France to a French mother but all have British passports because I am British. I was born in Germany, my father in Pakistan, his father in India... It's rather more complicated than just where you were born. And Scottish isn't a nationality. |
|||
OK, I'm from Edinburgh, but one of the last things I would ever want to admit about the city is that Tony Blair was born here. If he wants to call himself English, he can bash on! |
|||
--[[User:TimothyHorrigan|Timothy Horrigan]] 16:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC): It seems to me that a British citizen born in Scotland is Scottish. But I am a Yank so what do I know? |
|||
Yes, Blair is not very Scottish: his parents are of English and Irish ancestry, and he spent most of his life in England. But he is at least somewhat Scottish by virtue of his birth. The analogy about Keanu Reeves not being Lebanese falls apart for a variety of reasons, one being that Lebanon is not part of the same nation-state as the United States of America. (Arguments by analogy often fall apart.) But there is a somewhat more solid analogy you could draw between Reeves & Blair: Reeves is Hawaiian, and just as Hawaiians are both American and Hawaiian, Scots are both Scots and British. If I said Keanu Reeves is a "Hawaiian" actor, the Hawaiian nationalists (who do exist) would have an elaborate argument proving why he is not in any way shape or form Hawaiian--- but the fact would remain that Reeves has roots in Hawaii. Likewise, Blair has roots in Scotland. |
|||
It depends on what passport a person has. If a person was born on a trans-atlantic flight, you would not say they were Trans-atlantean. |
|||
Blair has a British passport, therefore... |
|||
Some footballers change their nationality (mother was Scottish, etc.) so that they can play for Scotland, because they can´t get a place in the England team. |
|||
You are what you want to be, and not where you were born. |
|||
[[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] 13:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
If you are born in Scotland, Lord Lyon will grant you Scottish armorial bearings, therefore Tony Blair is Scottish. He is also British, of course, by legal nationality. He might also have a right to Irish nationality through his mother, and he might choose to call himself English because his father is. You can, therefore, be Scottish, British, Irish and English all at once! Any British citizen may legally be a national of as many other countries as will accept him/her. In the UK it is quite possible to be seriously mulinational if you choose to be. |
|||
==Tony Blair: Rock Star== |
|||
We gotta put this stuff in [[User:Bowen Bayley|Bowen]] 22:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Tony Blair is a Politician from Scotland not a Scottish Politician. He has never tried to hide his Scottishness. He represents an English Constituency and is rightly proud to do so. He was not solely raised in England he went to boarding School in Scotland and stayed there until he was 19. At one point, his family emmigrated to Australia, but returned to the UK. This doesn't make him Australian. Very occasionally, when he is speaking, especially off the cuff or one-to one, his 'English' accent slips and you get a few words in pretty broad Scots, which is both funny and curious. The press have reported this numerous times. |
|||
It's okay for him to be Scottish and a Politician who represents England, just as many, many other Westminster Politicians are. |
|||
If someone, regardless of their parentage, ethnic origins or colour is born in Scotland, then they are Scottish. It's that simple. We have Asian Scots, Italian Scots, Polish Scots and Irish Scots to name but a few. What they all have in common is that they were born in the country of Scotland and are, therefore, unequivocally Scots. Unlike the millions of Americans who wear kilts and claim to be Scottish, even though no one in their family has been born here for 400 years. |
|||
Actually most people in America who say they're Scottish tend to have parents or grandparents |
|||
who were born in Scotland, in Scarborough (Eastern Toronto) there was apparently a wave of immigrants from the 60s. I don't even think my Quebec French family has been here for 400 years. |
|||
Anyways, it depends on point of view, some people born in Scotland might consider them selves Scottish, some might consider themselves something further back in the ancestry. Probably more complicated in Britain because its one country and what like 4 different nations or cultures that don't necessarily like each other. Anyways, someone should go ask him. [[User:Highlandlord|Highlandlord]] 10:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Impeachment== |
|||
Why is there no mention of the campaign to impeach Blair? [http://impeachblair.org/] [[User:Guinnog|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, [[User:SqueakBox|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. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|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? [[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 04:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC) In a parlimentry system a formal impeachment would not be neccesary, members of his party need only bolt and force a new election! |
|||
::::I've reinserted this para; shortening it did not make it better in this case. Please discuss here before making any wholesale changes, thanks [[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 19:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Guardian article== |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Blair&diff=prev&oldid=38918675 This] edit was made by the journalist who wrote [http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1706748,00.html this] Guardian article about wikipedia. Someone reverted him, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 15:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Born Again== |
|||
Where is the reference to him being born-again? [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Blair&curid=3301347&diff=39078977&oldid=39074378]] 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. [[User:Wikipete|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 [[User:Robdurbar|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 <small>—''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:195.93.21.35|195.93.21.35]] ([[User talk:195.93.21.35|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/195.93.21.35|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned--> |
|||
:::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"? [[User:CPMcE|''Camillus'']][[User talk:CPMcE| (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". [[User:CPMcE|''Camillus'']][[User talk:CPMcE| (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? [[User:CPMcE|''Camillus'']][[User talk:CPMcE| (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. [[User:John Kenney|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. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|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? |
|||
[[User:Eiler7|Eiler7]] 23:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Blair and Bush are united, so stop being so fussy about it, I think that it is an undisputed fact. or am i totally wrong??????????????????!!! |
|||
== Religion == |
|||
Why does this article tip-toe around the issue of Blair's Christianity? On Saturday the 4th of March he will tell chat show host Parkisnon that he called for divine intervention on the issue of Iraq. Are we ashamed to admit his religious convictions? He has publically claimed he keeps "a bible by his bed". Why is all this invariably deleted here? - unsigned comment by [[User:195.93.21.101]] |
|||
:There is a section discussing Blair's religion. However, because Blair has not made a public issue of his religion, it would not be appropriate to make a big issue of it. Keeping a bible by your bed is not particularly meaningful in itself (naturally one would expect a believer to have a copy of the bible, and naturally one would be more likely to refer to it at night rather than during the day). As for what Blair might say tomorrow, let's wait until the interview is broadcast. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 20:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Whilst I agree with [[User:Dbiv|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. [[User:SP-KP|SP-KP]] 10:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
The section about Blair's ties to the Catholic Church is interesting and relevant. Could something possibly be added explaining the constitutional problems his conversion whilst in office would cause, and a bit of the history? I know its complex but since Blair and religion is an oft discussed topic, it seems like it'd be worth mentioning. |
|||
== The deal == |
|||
I think the article may be too confident about the existence of the deal. [[User:Eiler7|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. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 15:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::I have changed my mind. The article is fine as it stands. [[User:Eiler7|Eiler7]] 22:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== The G word == |
|||
Should emphasis be made on Tony's declaration that he went to war because of his religious belifes? [[User:Me lkjhgfdsa|Me lkjhgfdsa]] 16:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Absolutely, [[User:SqueakBox|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. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 16:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree with [[User:Dbiv|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? [[User:SP-KP|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, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 18:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Where in the article do you think is the best place to refer to this? [[User:SP-KP|SP-KP]] 18:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
The fact that it is patently absurd Blair asked for supernatural guidance on the war in Iraq should not mean it is skipped over in this article. He asked for supernatural guidance on a war the majority of humanity in Great Britain were on the streets opposing. Should we not reference this? |
|||
:Yes we should - please suggest where, and propose some wording which you think would cover the subject adequately [[User:SP-KP|SP-KP]] 18:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
It should go at the end of the '''Iraq war''' section and just reword any sources you are using. I wouldn't go fo ''supernatural guidance'' as seeking guidance from God is clearly acceptable and correct behaviour in modern society, and we musn't make judgements over his behaviour, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 19:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:OK, how about "In an interview with [[Michael Parkinson]], broadcast on [[BBC1]] 4 March 2006, Blair stated that he had [[prayer|prayed]] for guidance from [[God]] to help him decide whether going to war in Iraq was a correct thing to do [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4772142.stm]." [[User:SP-KP|SP-KP]] 19:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Sounds great to me, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 21:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Any other comments from anyone before this is added in? [[User:SP-KP|SP-KP]] 22:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::As a Blair supporter, sounds fine with me. The ep of Parkinson aired (well, is airing now) on ITV1, not BBC1, though. :) [[User:Wezzo|Wezzo]] 22:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Balance/Size/Structure/issues i.e. the challenge for Wikipedia == |
|||
This article is getting to be almost as long and internally-contradictory as the Berlusconi one. Inevitable for conroversial/powerful and especially contemporary people, I suppose; their bios also attract disporportionate vandal abuse as well as strongly-felt POVs. The result is that it's beginning to lose cohenence, reads like something written by a large and factious committee (the essence of Wikipedia, I suppose), keeps swinging about and needs an army of alert defenders to watch over it. As such it is quite useful for flagging key issues about the subject but is not a reliable source in the way that, ironically, articles about some more abstruse subject that attracts only knoweledegeable and studious contributions and factual corrections from others, can often be. Quite a challenge to the Wikipedia idea, really as it's hard to see how to safeguard and enhance it according to NPOV Wiki principles without a more authoritarian non-Wiki approach (or elite committee to preserve the anti-elite Wikipedia idea!) --[[User:Farsee50|farsee50]] 11:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Sorry, but I've just removed your additions to the "criticisms" section for the very reasons you give above. Although some of what you wrote could be regarded as common and widespread opinion it does not represent an accurate enough picture for an encyclopedia. For instance, "The whole [[New Labour]] project was designed to make the party (and its leader) appeal to (and not frighten) "middle England", this is too broad a statement. Personally I'm also very wary when editors use terms such as "this offends the left" or "was attacked from the right". They draw on subjective assumptions of what the term implies. |
|||
:Also It seemed inappropriate to carry 8 lines dealing with what some people appreciated about Blair in a ''criticisms'' section. --[[User:Zleitzen|Zleitzen]] 09:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Blatant POV r.e. Northern Ireland? == |
|||
"At the same time Sinn Féin became clearly the largest nationalist party, as voters recognised that ''since Blair always capitulates to force'', the most forceful party was the only one worth supporting." |
|||
I think that's a little POV? |
|||
[[User:Kaenei|Kaenei]] 01:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Opinion Polls== |
|||
Just because the result of an opinion poll does not match your own opinion that does not mean that it is unreliable. They ARE representative of the entire population as respondents are chosen from a carefully selected cross section of society. All the laws of probability show that the views of 1000 random people will mirror the views of society - its basic probabilty. This article is opinionated and anti-war accorded to The Independent and no doubt the opponent of opinion polls is in that anti-war brigade. |
|||
Thank you Guardian reader. No, I disagree, opinion polls are often incorrect and un-representative. You can't put people in boxes so unless everyone has the opportunity to take part, then you cannot form an opinion. |
|||
The more people an opinion poll includes the more likely to be representative it is. Opinion pols performed by respectable organisations will take a large representative sample of the population and it will be close to representing the make up of public opinion, if not exact. If the Independent, a mainly centre left and anti-war paper describes the article as anti-war I think they can be trusted.[[User:Jameskeates|Jameskeates]] 15:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Leader of the Opposition and Leader of Labour Party succession issues == |
|||
Apologies if this is discussed elsewhere on the talk page or its archives, but I was wondering why Tony Blair is said (in the boxes at the bottom of this page) to be the successor to John Smith as [[Labour_Party_%28UK%29#Leaders_of_the_Labour_Party_since_1906|Labour Party Leader]] and [[Leader of the Opposition (UK)#Official_Leaders_of_the_Opposition|Leader of the Opposition]]? The Wikipedia pages covering these two roles both state that Margaret Beckett was acting Labour Party leader and was presumably the Official Leader of the Opposition (rather than acting) in the interim period after John Smith died. Is it usual for these "succession" boxes to ignore acting/interim leaders? I found some discussion of this issue [[Talk:Leader_of_the_Opposition_%28UK%29#Margaret_Beckett|here]]. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 13:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Another point to add. The succession boxes for "Labour Party Leader" on this page shows the order "John Smith - Tony Blair". But the box further down the page, showing the Labour Party Leaders, lists the order "John Smith - Margaret Becckett - Tony Blair". This is just inconsistent. It should be one or the other, and one of them needs changing. I'm not sure which one is technically correct. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 22:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::It's a difficult issue and brings to mind the constitutional disagreement in the US over whether a Deputy President became the President on the death of the incumbent, or became the Acting President, or remained the Deputy President but with Presidential powers. Formally, the Labour Party rules at the time of John Smith's death said this (rule 5 (4)): "When the party leader, for whatever reason, becomes permanently unavailable, the deputy party leader shall automatically become party leader until a new party leader is elected". So Margaret Beckett was actually Leader of the Labour Party, and in fact during this period material was indeed issued which identified her as such. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 22:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
===Who is / are the leader(s) of the de facto left opposition within Labour to Blair & New Labour?=== |
|||
Blair, et al have been in charge since the 1990s. |
|||
Yet, there is only a fleeting mention of Kinnock as a [[left]] opponent of Blair's move to the right. |
|||
However, neither in this article, nor in the Labour or Kinnock articles are there anything on whether Kinnock or who in particular has led a challenge to the right direction of New Labour and Blair. |
|||
Where is the discussion of leadership in Labour against Blair's coziness with and lack of critique of George W. Bush's policies in the Middle East? [[User:Dogru144|Dogru144]] 8:17 30 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:[[Neil Kinnock]] has been scrupulous in not continually criticising his successors. The first recorded instance of any criticism was in 2006 over educational reforms. Labour Party opposition to Blair's policies would merit an article in its own right. [[User:Nunquam Dormio|Nunquam Dormio]] 08:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== November 1988 usage of "Spin Doctor" == |
|||
Widespread understanding of the terms "Spin Doctor" and "Spin" in UK politics emerged during the late Thatcher administration, not with Tony Blair's rise to power. Here is the article reference for the earliest mention of the phrase "Spin Doctor" I can find in the major UK broadsheet newspapers: the article title is: "Gracious address in need of spin doctor; State Opening of Parliament; Inside Politics" |
|||
by David Hughes, ''[[The Sunday Times (UK)|The Sunday Times]]'', 20 November 1988. [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 22:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Authoritarianism == |
|||
May I ask why my instertion of words "sweeping" regarding police powers, and "roughly" regarding Wolfang's treatment, were deleted twice? [[User:Merlov]] 16:01 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Because they endorse a point of view, thereby violating [[WP:NPOV|Wikipedia's 'neutral point of view']] principle. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 15:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Have replaced "sweeping" with "additional" although I realise that term may not suffice either. Have also inserted "violently ejected" rather than "roughly" and would point to the large amount of footage available of the incident to qualify that assessment. Have made changes to avoid potential edit war --[[User:Zleitzen|Zleitzen]] 15:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I don't mind 'additional', but what about 'wide ranging'? The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2001 is wideranging in giving police powers. 'Violently rejected' is fine, though [[User:Dbiv]] thinks differently and has changed your edit. [[User:Merlov]] 10:06, 01 April 2006 |
|||
== Hideous Photo == |
|||
I realise that the purpose of the main photograph is simply for identification purposes and nothing more, but doesn't anyone else agree that this photograph of Tony Blair is a bit, weird? It seems to be a posed photograph and Blair is clearly one of those people who doesn't pose very well for photographs. The expression on his face just doesn't seem normal and distracts my attention from the aricle. To be perfectly honest I simply don't like the photo and I think wikipedia could do with using a different one. That's my two cents anyway. [[User:84.64.197.145|84.64.197.145]] 23:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Well, all profiles on politicians are pose-based, like ones taken after being elected to Parliament. There are non-pose one in the profile, like when talking as Home Secretary regarding the closed-shop. [[User:Merlov]] 11:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't mind it. As Merlov said, it identifies him quickly and easily; while it's not perfect, no other really good shots of him come to mind. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]] [[User:Wezzo/userboxes|(ubx)]]</small> 10:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::I can't see anything wrong with the picture at all. "Weird"? It's just Tony Blair - that's what he looks like. [[User:CPMcE|''Camillus'']][[User talk:CPMcE| (talk)]] 10:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::We seem to go through this issue every few months. As with other contemporary biographies, it's not that no better photo is out there, it's just that the image has to be (a) a good photo, and (b) on a free license if at all possible. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 10:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Disabled Again? == |
|||
Who disabled the page again? And why? [[User:Merlov]] 10:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:This was done by an admin through the page protection process, because of recurring vandalism by anon users. If you wish to see it unprotected, please propose this at [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection]] [[User:SP-KP|SP-KP]] 10:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Yes, but no one has said where the vandalism is on the talk page. [[User:Merlov]] 10:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:The vandalism has been very frequent; several registered editors watch this page and revert it as soon as it happens. To document it in detail here wouldn't serve much of a purpose, as far as I can tell - why do you think we should do that? The purpose of semi-protection is to take the load off the people who are editing the page responsibly so they can spend their time more effectively. [[User:SP-KP|SP-KP]] 17:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== "The Right Honourable" == |
|||
According to the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)]]: |
|||
'' |
|||
*(1) Styles and honorifics which are derived from noble title, including The Most Noble, The Most Honourable, The Right Honourable, and The Honourable, shall not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper. |
|||
*(2) Styles and honorifics which are derived from political activities, including but not limited to The Right Honourable for being a Member of the Privy Council, shall not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper.'' |
|||
If I understood well, "The Right Honourable" should not be featured in the intro and in the infobox, so why is it here? [[User:Cedar-Guardian|CG]] 19:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: Umm. That's... new, and completely contrary to how we've been writing biographies for years now. |
|||
: [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 09:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::It's not actually new. It was discussed properly at the time. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 17:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yup. It has been policy for months now. Styles are not ''used'' but they can be ''mentioned''. Any styles like the ''Rt Hon'' are automatically removed from usage. So we can't write "The Right Honorable Tony Blair"' at the start of the article. But we can say something like "Tony Blair is styled the ''Right Honorable" ''. They also can feature in infoboxes. [[User:Jtdirl|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl|(caint)]]</font></sup> 21:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::: And since we stoped using styles for royals (the only people who actually use them in most situations), it makes sense not to use them for politicans. [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]] 23:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Thank you for your fast response. But why did you keep the title in the infobox? [[User:Cedar-Guardian|CG]] 05:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I think it doesn't make too much sense to exclude "the Right Honourable," but to include post-nominals, which convey the same kind of information. HRH's and such don't really convey anything new - all British princes are HRHs. Nor do "Right Honourables" and "Most Honourables" and so forth for peers. But for privy councillors, it doesn't make sense to take out right honourable. Why is someone's status as a [[Edmund Hillary|Knight of the Garter]] or a [[Ringo Starr|Member of the Order of the British Empire]] worth mentioning in the first line, but not their status as a privy councillor? So, I agree with point 1 in the manual of style, but not point 2, since the latter discriminates oddly between post-nominal and pre-nominal distinctions for no apparent reason. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 15:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:It's better to apply the policy as it is. If you object to it, post this message in the policy talk page rather than here. [[User:Cedar-Guardian|CG]] 19:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Protection status for this article == |
|||
I would like to establish what the editors feel is the appropriate protection status for this article. The context to this question is as follows - after a spate of vandalism by anon editors, it was semiprotected earlier this year. It has since been unprotected and semiprotected several times, and each time the unprotection has been followed by heavy vandalism by multiple anon users. There appear to be a number of options: |
|||
* leave unprotected and deal with vandalism as it occurs |
|||
* keep up the semiprotect/unprotect cycle |
|||
* treat the article in the same way as [[George W. Bush]], with more or less permanent semiprotection (until it is deemed safe to unprotect, probably some time after 2008) |
|||
Any views? [[User:SP-KP|SP-KP]] 13:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: Sadly, I think permanent semi-protection is perhaps warranted in this circumstance, yes. |
|||
: [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 13:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: With semi-protection proliferating wildly, I think it is high time we have some standards to use to judge how badly an article is suffering. |
|||
: I propose the cut-off for permanent semi-protection should be some function of a) the ratio of good:bad anon edits and b)the proportion of the time that the article is spending in a vandalized state. [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 13:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:: I agree. At present, decisions to protect and unprotect are being made by individual admins to varying standards; it would be far better if there was an agreed standard that admin decisions could be audited against. Probably best to kick off a discussion on this at [[Wikipedia Talk:Semi-protection policy]]. [[User:SP-KP|SP-KP]] 14:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::I know Tony Sidaway created a tool to find how often a page was vandalized. If that tool is still working after the recent changes to the toolserver, I am sure it would be helpful in putting together a proposal. Sorry can't find the link right now! [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 14:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Unprotected again == |
|||
The page has been unprotected again (the 5th time now, I think), and of course, there will be high levels of anon vandalism as a result. Anyone care to reinstate semiprotection? [[User:SP-KP|SP-KP]] 10:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: It seems to me that most edits are either vandalism or near-vandalism or reversions of the aforesaid. I'd favour semi-protection. 10:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:: I'd agree. This is getting a bit monotonous. [[User:Alan Davidson|Alan Davidson]] 17:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think it should be left unprotected, now the schools are on holiday for 6 weeks or so, the level of anon vandalism will be down probably. --[[User:TheM62Manchester|TheM62Manchester]] 17:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::The little mites (if that's who they are) have broadband at home these days. Seven reverts and counting today. It took an hour and a half and contributions from various people to get one vandal blocked today. Perhaps monitor for a while but the rate of vandalism needs to be reduced somehow. [[User:Nunquam Dormio|Nunquam Dormio]] 19:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Blairite== |
|||
Please note that the term 'Blairite' when typed into the search engine takes one to the Tony Blair page. This is clearly wrong, as 'Blairite' has meaning. I propose this entry |
|||
'Blairite'. |
|||
This term is routinely assumed to refer to a follower of a political philosophy as espoused by Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingom. However as most people would have trouble associating any particular political philosophy with Tony Blair, the term 'Blairite' should more accurately be used to refer to Members of the UK Parliament and others who regularly voice support for Tony Blair in the hope of preferment and political advancement. {{unsigned|195.166.158.12}} |
|||
* I once made a major edit to save [[Thatcherism]] from becoming a redirect to Mrs Thatcher. There is a good case for unredirecting it and attempting an article. I think your proposal could be improved: |
|||
:In [[Politics of the United Kingdom|United Kingdom politics]], the term '''Blairite''' refers to a personal and/or political supporter of [[Tony Blair]], [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|Prime Minister]] since 1997 and Leader of the [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]] since 1994. Politically, Blair has been identified with support for involvement of private companies in public services, an interventionist foreign policy, and support for strong powers to law enforcement agencies. The term is used in particular to identify those within the Labour Party who prefer Blair's leadership to that of [[Gordon Brown]]. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 22:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::I've updated the [[Blairite|redirect]] page per what seems as a consensus here. I used [[User:Dbiv]]'s text as the most appropriate. [[User:Captainj|Captainj]] 23:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
''Blair has been identified with support for involvement of private companies in public services, an interventionist foreign policy, and support for strong powers to law enforcement agencies'' |
|||
I still struggle with any definition that imputes a poilitical philosophy to the word 'Blairite'. One could quite easily replace the word 'Blair' in the italicised sentence with the word 'Brown' who equally has (probably) been identified with support for the policies stated. So listing policies 'identified' with Tony Blair does not help us delineate, for example, between 'Blairites' and 'Brownites'. |
|||
== Version 0.5 Nomination == |
|||
Failed on quality: cleanup tag for refs section is not discussed on talk, but is still valid. Cleanup refs and renominate. [[User:Chcknwnm|'''Ch''']][[User:Chcknwnm/Esperanza|<font color="Green">u</font>]][[User talk:Chcknwnm|'''ck''']]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Chcknwnm|(척뉴넘)]]</sup> 02:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Sunfazer's long-range reversion == |
|||
I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Blair&diff=56217357&oldid=56203245 reverted] [[User:Sunfazer]]'s seriously [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Blair&diff=56203245&oldid=56120516 long-range reversion] all the way back to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Blair&oldid=29827420 this] revision from 1 December 2005. |
|||
Given that it's so significant a set of changes (and breakages), I think we should probably discuss this first. Of course, if the consensus is to carry through, please feel free to de-revert (or, umm, re-revert). :-) |
|||
[[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 22:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::I was testing the new popups.js script, apologies! --[[User:Sunfazer|Sunfazer]] |[[User talk:Sunfazer|Talk]] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|40px]] [[Image:Tux.png|20px]] 11:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Notes section == |
|||
The notes section is entirely inadequate. I would prefer to see them improved rather than initate a featured article removal candidate. If anyone is currently working on fixing this article's references please let me know. [[User:Savidan|savidan]]<sup>[[User_talk:Savidan|(talk)]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">(e@)</span>]]</sup> 07:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Trivia, clean-up tags == |
|||
Hi [[User:Raul654]] - on the two issues you've identified with this article, here are my views: |
|||
If I understand you correctly, becuase this article is an FA, you wish to ensure it remains of FA quality - a good intention, which I support. I think the two problems you've identified need different resolutions: |
|||
* Whether the article should have a trivia section - personally, I like trivia sections, and think there are good reasons for having them. I don't believe that the removal of the trivia section of this article is a necessary prerequisite for this article to remain as an FA. As far as I know, there isn't an anti-trivia section policy which you we use to justify removal of trivia sections? I think it should stay, but would be interested to discuss |
|||
**Trivia sections are horrible writing - if something is worth saying in an article, it should be said in prose. If it is not so important, then it doesn ot belong. Trivia sections are deleted as a matter of course from article on teh FAC (so yes, consider that the anti-trivia section policy). It is unacceptable to add one after an article has become featured. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 11:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
***I understand your point of view (although the individual items in a trivia sections ''are'' prose, of course). However, this isn't WP policy - it is an opinion. If you wish to establish a consensus on the unacceptability of trivia sections, you need to do that in the same way that we do for anything else; if there is, as you say, a strong degree of support for the view that trivia sections are bad, then it should be possible to establish this as policy quite easily, but let's have the discussion. Until then, I think it's premature to delete them from specific articles, featured or not. [[User:SP-KP|SP-KP]] 11:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
****(1) this is not just my point of view, this has been the way we do things for quite some time now. Trivia sections have been flatly unacceptable for featurd articles for years now. It's not explicitely stated for the same reason that the criteria don't prohibit 44 point neon-pink blinking text - because it's pointless to try to explicitely rule out all the bad writing styles people push. On the other hand, the "brilliant prose" requirement covers it implicitely. (2) You apparently misunderstand policy. Policy is created through experience of our best practices. The FAC has established, as a matter of course, to remove trivia sections. That is, by definition, one of our best practices. Your claim that it is not poliy is false. (3) No, it's not premature at all; the article was promoted without a trivia section for a very good reason; it was subsequently added and should never have been to begin with. And (4) a list of trivia is not prose; it's a collection of factiods with no context or logical order to them; thus, it is not prose, but simply a list of statements. That's why they are terrible writing, and have been recognized as such for quite some time. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 11:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*****(1) Amusing comparison :-) However, I don't think there's anyone out there who would suggest 44 point neon-pink blinking text is a good idea, whereas there is a body of opinion that believes trivia sections are justifiable in some circumstances, and not a bad writing style ''per se''. Is there something in the definition of "brilliant prose" which specifically rules out trivia sections?. (2) I believe there ''is'' a distinction between policy and best practice - I'm using the term policy here in the sense that it is used by [[WP:Policy]]; if there's a subtlety about the term's usage that I've not yet picked up on, forgive me, but you'll need to point it out. (3) I'm not sure I understand your argument here; what do you mean by "promoted without a trivia section for a very good reason"? (4) No, that's not what I said. I said that the ''individual'' items in a trivia sections are prose. Each trivia item on its own isn't terrible writing, clearly - what I think you're saying is that collecting them together loosely in an unstructured list is terrible writing, is that correct? If so, again, that's a viewpoint, but there are good arguments for the opposite viewpoint. We need to have the discussion. [[User:SP-KP|SP-KP]] 12:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* Cleanup tags ... presumably the editor who placed the cleanup tag on the references section did so becuase they felt it needed cleanup? In which case, the appropriate action, presumably is to do the cleanup? We shouldn't say "This is an FA, therefore it shouldn't have a cleanup tag" regardless of the need for cleanup - or have I misunderstood your comment. I don't want to see this delisted as an FA, but at the same time, it has to justify that status. [[User:SP-KP|SP-KP]] 11:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**On second look, the tag probably referred to the fact that hte references are not named (just numbered), as opposed to being a more serious issue. The wiki-text to generate it is spread throughout the article as opposoed to being located in that one section. This should be easy enough to fix - I'll look at it in the next day or so. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 11:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
***Yes, that was my understanding of the problem. I agree that it should be easy to fix - thanks for offering to do that, I was hoping someone else would volunteer! [[User:SP-KP|SP-KP]] 11:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Deleted trivia == |
|||
As can be seen above, Raul654 and I have different views about whether this (and other articles, featured or not) should have trivia sections. As well as that question, there is the more specific question of whether any of the information which has been included in this article's (currently deleted) trivia section should be included in the article at all. Rather than let ''that'' question be obscured by the more generic question being disucssed above, I thought it better to separate it out into its own section. |
|||
Here is the list of information which appeared in the trivia section prior to its deletion, but not currently included in the article. Any thoughts? I've given my views below - other thoughts welcome. In particular, if you can see an existing section, or can think of w new, non-trivial, one where any of the following naturally fit, rather than having them in a trivia section, please note that too. |
|||
''* He is the only head of government to ever appear in ''[[The Simpsons]]'', after voicing himself in the episode, "[[The Regina Monologues]]". This caused controversy, because he recorded his part during the [[Iraq War]]. |
|||
:SP-KP view: Notable and therefore inclusion-worthy, though controversy should be sourced |
|||
''* At the beginning of [[March 2006]], Blair said that [[Isaac Deutscher]]'s three-volume biography of [[Leon Trotsky]] "made a very deep impression on me and gave me a love of political biography for the rest of my life". <ref>[http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/entertainment/arts/literature/s/206/206467_blair_launches_world_book_day.html]</ref> |
|||
:SP-KP view: Not sure - if we can establish the significance of this, then inclusion-worthy, otherwise perhaps not? |
|||
''* The last person to become Prime Minster at a younger age than Blair, in 1812 was [[Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool|Lord Liverpool]]. |
|||
:SP-KP view: Notable and therefore inclusion-worthy |
|||
''*He is the fifth Prime Minister born in [[Scotland]], and the first since [[Ramsay MacDonald]]. |
|||
:SP-KP view: Notable enough? Not sure |
|||
''*He is currently the seventh longest continuously-serving Prime Minister in British history. |
|||
:SP-KP view: Notable and therefore inclusion-worthy |
|||
''*He is a supporter of football club [[Newcastle United F.C|Newcastle United]]. |
|||
:SP-KP view: Not sure. If included, we need to source it. |
|||
[[User:SP-KP|SP-KP]] 12:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: Write an article of trivia about British Prime Ministers, then. Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, not an almanac. |
|||
: [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 16:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::James, that seems like an uncharacteristically grouchy reply, not like your usual constructive contributions - are you OK? Can you take a closer look at the list above - it would be good to have your opinion on whether any of the above are worthy of inclusion, or do you feel they all fall below the line? [[User:SP-KP|SP-KP]] 16:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::: Sorry, but there have been quite a few people going on about keeping trivia in articles of late, and it's made me (and many others) somewhat grumpy. :-) |
|||
::: Trivia sections are by definition not suitable for an encyclopædia. If you can weave the item of trivia into the actual prose in a useful way - ''e.g.'', "Blair coasted victory in 1997, becoming the youngest Prime Minister since The Lord Liverpool", or for the appeareance in ''The Simpsons'' could (perhaps) go into a section on his relationship with the media (Murdoch in particular, in this instance) and how he puts himself across to both British citizens and those of other countries (primarily, in the case of ''The Simpsons'', the US) - then yes, their addition embellishes and improves the article. However, the solitary collection of disjoint pieces of trivial and often fatuous information has no place in an encyclopædic context. |
|||
::: [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 17:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::Fair enough, you're forgiven :-) Do you agree, though, that given that there is such a divergence of views on this, that we ought to be trying to form a community consensus? At the moment (see discussion above) I don't believe there is one. Or am I misreading the situation? [[User:SP-KP|SP-KP]] 17:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yes, you are misreading the situation. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 17:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::::OK, but tell me why. Where is there a documented, agreed approach to tackling trivia? Sorry to keep going on about this, but I don't think you can reasonably expect me just to accept that your view on this is the established community consensus without the same level of evidence that you would expect if I was making a similar assertion that you disagreed with. [[User:SP-KP|SP-KP]] 17:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Why on Earth would it need to be "documented" to be true? Remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. |
|||
::::::: [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 18:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: I think the question you need to ask yourself is not whether it is true, but how can you convince me that it is true. If someone tells me that they believe that something is Wikipedia policy, established practice etc, I have two choices, to believe them, or not. Lots of things influence which option I choose. Foremost, there's [[WP:AGF|Assume Good Faith]], and therefore I believe that you both genuinely believe what you are telling me. If two or more editors are saying the same thing, especially if they are experienced editors like the two of you are, then that obviously adds more credibility to what is being said. However, I still cannot be sure that it's me, not you, who is misinterpreting the situation. From what I've read on this particular issue, I believe that there ''is'' actually quite a range of views on the subject of trivia, and that what you are saying, although you believe it yourself, actually isn't true, even though you both believe it to be. The point about documentation is that it gives accountability and auditability - ''everyone'' can see whether something is an agreed common position or not. If you can point me at something documented, that strengthens your case; in the absence of documentation, I'm actually ''more'' inclined to think that what you're saying is incorrect. [[User:SP-KP|SP-KP]] 18:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: If you want to be sure about established practice for trivia, look through the featured article debates and see if any articles were included with trivia sections, from what James and Raul have said, I doubt it. I personally am split on this issue, I think it is nice to include the trivia, but having a section on it is a magnet for anyone who wants to add the tiniest most irrelevant piece of information and argue it is notable because it appeared in newspaper once. The best solution is to weave it into the article as other editors suggested - where that can't be done it's a shame we can't have a section for it... [[User:Captainj|CaptainJ]]<sup> ([[User talk:Captainj|t]] | [[Special:Contributions/Captainj|c]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Captainj|e]])</sup> 20:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I'll try to integrate some of the more significant trivia into the article, per [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] and [[User:SP-KP|SP-KP]] then. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 18:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Overall assessments? == |
|||
I'm a newcomer to this page, so maybe I should be hesitant to suggest significant changes. But maybe sections might be added attempting to sum up TB's overall political philosophy, achievements, or character? Maybe something along these lines would be useful to the casual reader who doesn't want to read the whole article? |
|||
Perhaps something like this (re political philosophy) could go somewhere: |
|||
Which part of the political spectrum Tony Blair occupies is hotly disputed. Many old-style Conservatives regard him as a left-winger, while many of his left-wing critics would place him on the right of centre. Blair rarely applies such labels to himself, though he promised, in advance of the 1997 election, that New Labour would govern "from the radical centre", and he is on record as describing himself as a "social democrat". |
|||
An overview of Blair's policies gives an idea of the difficulty of defining him politically. He has raised taxes (though not by very much), implemented redistributive policies (to a modest extent), introduced a minimum wage and some new employment rights (while leaving Margaret Thatcher's trade union legislation wholly unchanged), introduced important constitutional reforms (which remain incomplete and controversial), promoted new rights for gay people in the Civil Partnerships Act, and engaged more closely with the EU than the Conservatives would have done. On the other hand, he has firmly supported George W. Bush's foreign policy (while reportedly attempting to act as a restraining influence on him), introduced substantial market-based reforms in the education and health sectors (though not to the extent advocated by the Conservatives), introduced student tuition fees (with safeguards for poor students), sought to reduce (certain categories of) welfare payments, and introduced tough anti-terrorism and identity card legislation (at a time of real danger and with claimed public support). |
|||
Or something like this (re character): |
|||
It may seem difficult to reconcile the twin images of Tony Blair, the earnest practising Christian who once described himself as "a pretty straight kind of guy" and insisted that he "acted in good faith" over the Iraq War, and "Bliar", the mendacious politician who manipulates the media for political advantage and led Britain into a war on the basis of information that proved to be entirely false. One view might be that Blair and New Labour's heavy use of "spin" and news management tactics, while not ultimately amounting in themselves to lying or wholly reprehensible conduct, have encouraged cynicism and lowered public trust in Blair to the extent that many are unable to believe his protestations of sincerity and good faith (as, in particular, after the Iraq War) even when they are true. |
|||
Is this too POV? -- [[User:Ancus|Ancus]] 14:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I'd say the last para is not merely very POV, but already covered, and I would be strongly against including any of it. It could be argued that most of the material related to Blair's politics is likewise already covered although not in a single discrete paragraph. Perhaps that would be better placed at [[Blairism]]. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 13:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, I'll admit that the last para is perhaps inappropriate (though it's a classic Blairesque example of triangulation, no?). My point about the other material is that, as you say, it's not covered in a composite, discrete way, and I think that a dedicated section on this page (as well as under [[Blairism]]) would serve a useful purpose. [[User:Ancus|Ancus]] 15:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Spelling error in section "Domestic Policies", near the end: |
|||
Sentence "Blair has supported gay rights more then any previous British Prime Minister". |
|||
needs "then" changed to "than" |
|||
::No evil person ever thinks they are that and no liar thinks that they are. But to the honest it is clear, the dissembling and reassembling of 'the truth' and 'the facts' is repressed in their twisted and foul minds to feed their lust for power. But we know the truth. The more they protest. The more we know it is true. |
|||
Besides. Blair himself has said he is a liar. When Michael Howard called him that last year before the election, he said...'yes - so what? I am a liar, but so is Michael Howard'. They try and forget now, but we know the truth. |
|||
When oh when will England be free of these foul tyrants! Though I long for Magna Carta, the truths and rights of free born Britons we know it shall not be again, they have paved this land with the blue laws of Puritanism, whilst they fatten themselves as pigs, they set the low high and the high very low, and hark! We might see it, the great clashing of factions begins. |
|||
All evil doers get their just deserts eventually... |
|||
:Do you have a citation from a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] for that quote? [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 13:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::It's not an exact quote, would need research. You remember when it happened, last year during the election campaign...I'll look about[[User:194.112.59.180|194.112.59.180]] 13:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== History Man == |
|||
Has anyone ever considered just how ''awful'' Tony Blair and his government really is? It was always the case that Margaret Thatcher was his inspiration, and he is now clinging on to office, I believe, for the simple reason that he wants to exceed her eleven year record, and thus attain his own place in history. What are we left with; what is Blair's place in history to be? |
|||
Forget longevity; here are the main points to consider. |
|||
1. He started unravelling the United Kingdom, bequething to Scotland a national Parliament of painful mediocrity. |
|||
2. The British have lost control of their borders. |
|||
3. Crime and the causes of crime are out of control. |
|||
4. Taxation is now at crippling levels, with money pouring into the NHS and other financial black holes. |
|||
5. He has, by his actions, invited terrorism to make a home in cities and towns throughout the United Kingdom. |
|||
5. He has involved Britain in a foreign adventure far more serious than that which destroyed poor Anthony Eden in 1956. Iraq is worse than Suez for the simple reason that we have the wolf by the ears-we do not want to hang on but we dare not let go. Perhaps the best epitaph on Blair is to be found in Shakespeare's Macbeth-''I am in blood stepp'd in so far that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o'er.''[[User:Rcpaterson|Rcpaterson]] 08:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for your opinions. However article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for anyone to give their opinions on the subject. The article must be written in [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] which means discussing all significant opinions but endorsing none of them. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 08:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Which is, of course, a laughable statement coming from 'David'. Of course, discussion of immigration could centre on how Labour incompetence has let in millions of new immigrants thanks to their illegal collapse of asylum hearings and appeals. |
|||
It could centre upon his crushing of local democracy through the unaccountable local assemblies |
|||
Or upon Prescotts illegal building over the countryside with mansions for crony millionaires |
|||
Or upon his destruction of freedom of the press through the gross and manipulative Hutton inquiry |
|||
Or upon how their illegal dirty war in Northern Ireland |
|||
Or upon how they have screwed about with the NHS time and again to give money to their friends... |
|||
...the consultants who they spent £30billion each year...or how labour officials enjoy time and fat salaries with these consultants when they are out of office |
|||
or the gross corruption scandals involving Cherie Blair, Prescott, mandelson, Mills and Eccleston to list a few |
|||
or how they have privatised the schools and given them to their buddies under the 'academy' scheme |
|||
Or their relentless thirst for power, how free speech is now so drastically curtailed |
|||
Or how they want to seize all legislative power under a 'tidying up exercise' - which considering the incompetence of their legislation may well be warranted. |
|||
Or how they have launched illegal wars since Kosovo... |
|||
Or how they are incapable of telling the truth |
|||
Or how they have plunged electoral attendance to its lowest level since the 19th Century |
|||
Or how they talk about a 'meritocratic society' yet nepotistically give opportunities to their children, including in hollywood and in Washington where the little brat was given the opportunity, each week, to make contacts at the UK ambassadors suppers. |
|||
Or how Blair oversaw changes in legislation to make any offece arrestable, the violation of the double jeapordy rule, the changes in the neccesary balance of proof for imprisonment |
|||
Or how they hushed up the worlds largest ever nuclear leak at Sellafield last year to win the general election and then sold the site, privately, to an American body run by their buddies. |
|||
Or how the whole country is suffering under the cognitive dissonance of lie upon lie upon lie that leads half the country to quake in their beads that this satanic mad man is going to let armed soldiers invade their homes and try to shoot them dead without the scantest proof... |
|||
This is a bollock biography mainly written by Dbiv, one of the paid-apparatchiks of the Labour party, who spends his time, when he should be working for his Westminster council constituents editting a biography of the foul tyrant that rests his satanic backside upon the throne of the country spreading his evil ooze across the country.[[User:194.112.59.180|194.112.59.180]] 13:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Please read our [[WP:NPA|no personal attacks]]. In point of fact I have never been paid by the Labour Party, and editing Wikipedia in my spare time does not stop me from helping my constituents. You may wish to read, learn and inwardly digest the [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] policy as well. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 13:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::yeah, yeah. Read the history - you attacked me enough...& blah blah. you're splitting hairs. You get paid by the central govt. through Westminster gov. elected under the Labour ticket. splitting hairs...but - okay - let's just say some editers here are very blinkered and frightful trolls. Not naming any names David. [[User:194.112.59.180|194.112.59.180]] 13:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
It's a while since I have been here. It's interesting to note that a Labour apparatchick has been appointed-or self appointed-to police this page, and I imagine there are others. Improvements to the page? Well, let me think: what about scrapping it altogether and writing a critical and objective assessment instead of this absurd-and nauseatingly bland-'appreciation'? Will that do? What appears here could be straight out of the Stalinist manual for approved biographes. I would ask all those who are capable of critical thought to consider some of the weasel-like manipulation. For example, readers are being gently led to the conclusion that criticism of Blair's policy on crime may simply be coming from the 'chattering classes' (ugh!). This fog of lies and half-truths owes much more to the so-called 'chattering classes' than it clearly cares to admit. [[User:Rcpaterson|Rcpaterson]] 02:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Terrorist == |
|||
"accountable to God" Anyone making this claim, that they are accountable to god, not to those that elected them, should be detained indefinately in a secure psychiatric facility. This is what needs to happed to Blair. |
|||
The man is an utterly degenerate parasite and has destroyed the UK with his offensive social marxism over the past 10 years. I would be willing to bet that if we polled the electorate, the vast majority would quite happily see his head mounted on a spike outside the tower of London, rather then suffer another term of office with him as PM. |
|||
1. Substantially removed the neutrality of the second chamber (Lords) and replaced it with a cabal of his own cronies. |
|||
2. Uses the Parliament act when even these appointed Labour lapdogs won't back his crazy social marxist plans. |
|||
3. Wants to change the law so that he can 'veto or amend' any existing legislation on the statute book without parliamentary oversight. (Legislative & Regulatory Reform Bill) |
|||
Britain is walking into a stalinist style dictatorship and the people seem too naive or apathic to notice. |
|||
Give it 20 years and the UK will either be under soviet style control or will be an Islamic caliphate because of unchecked immigration.[[User:82.21.53.210|82.21.53.210]] 09:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: Don't be silly, it was not Marxism. Not Stalinism either. Nor Soviet Islamicism. The reference to unchecked immigration rather gives you away, Mr Anonymous. Nice Mister Tony is just another tool of the very rich people. He may know it, and he may not, but he's a Christian and stupid with it, so he may well imagine he is thinking for himself. Whichever it is he has done as much damage as his monstrous predecessor, Mrs Thatchescu. Cheers [[User:The Real Walrus|The Real Walrus]] 23:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::To the first guy what are you smoking? To Walrus, 1 Blair isn't as conservative as Thatcher as you'd like to imagine, 2 Thatcher wasn't THAT bad and 3 Ceauşescu deserves better he didn't work so hard to be that evil and selfish to be compared to a mild conservative. |
|||
== No principles == |
|||
That needs to go down as a criticism. From the right there is the old Hague quote: |
|||
"In more than 20 years in politics, he has betrayed every cause he believed in, contradicted every statement he has made, broken every promise he has given and breached every agreement that he has entered into... There is a lifetime of U-turns, errors and sell-outs. All those hon. Members who sit behind the Prime Minister and wonder whether they stand for anything any longer, or whether they defend any point of principle, know who has led them to that sorry state. " |
|||
And, from the left, we have an equally bitter part of the Morning Star on Friday, 16th June, 2006[http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index2.php/free/comment/a_letter_to_the_leader]. |
|||
"As the ham actor that he is, he affects sincerity and professes whatever ideas are in fashion. His only philosophy is lick upwards and kick downwards. In the early 1980s, that meant sucking up to Labour Party leader Michael Foot, wearing a CND badge and running around Hackney urging support for Tony Benn's deputy leadership. A decade or so later, it meant praising Margaret Thatcher and putting the boot into the trade unions. He told Mr Foot that radical socialist policies were needed at a time when the US was 'in the grip of the same economic madness Mrs Thatcher visits upon us.' Now, he is obsessed with those same neoliberal policies and describes those who press for a radical socialist alternative as living in the past."[[User:212.159.30.47|212.159.30.47]] 22:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
No, he's much worse than that. [[User:The Real Walrus|The Real Walrus]] 23:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== A mistake == |
|||
It's such a major article I assume I must be missing something in the following sentence or somebody would have pointed it out before me: |
|||
:a development partly supported by the reform socialist think tank |
|||
It doesn't seem to make any sense. Perhaps it should read "by the socialist think tank Reform" but Reform isn't socialist. I changed thinktank to think tank too. --[[User:Lo2u|Lo2u]] 20:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Oh I get it, the Fabian Society isn't a separate item. Still shouldn't that read "pro-reform" or "reforming" or something? Reform isn't an adjective. --[[User:Lo2u|Lo2u]] 20:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Strange goings on...== |
|||
There appears to have been an anachronistic vandal revert by [[user:Tobes00]]. Dont know how it happened but it was done with [[WP:VPRF]], so maybe theres as bug in it? Ive tried to undo the minor chaos it caused (most edits since where partial reverts) - my appologies if ive messed up anyone elses edits [the situation got quite confusing!]. [[User:Poobarb|Poobarb]] 02:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:What the? There is strange things going on! Listen to this portion: |
|||
::Opinion polls however show that ASBOs remain popular with the public leading some to suggest that criticism of them comes mainly from the [[chattering classes]] who do not regularly experience anti-social behaviour.[citation needed] It could be argued that Blair's crime policies are popular with the majority of the public for their populist, commonsense approach." |
|||
:The "chatting classes" apparently is the British version of "[[Liberal Elite]]", both words seemingly invented by media smart politicians in the 1980s to change the perception of certain groups through language. This statement is definitely not NPOV, that is for sure, and it doesn't look like the Liberal Elite page is either. Someone is twisting the facts on this page, and I don't like it. <span style="color:#FFD700; background-color:black"> [[User_talk:Superbeatles|≈Superbeatles™]] </span> 23:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::We know who twists the facts on this page. The labour government is not famous for 'perception management' for nothing. It is laughable to claim that this page is NPOV. It has a startling cognitive dissonance with 'the truth'. If, in the modern world, we can even talk about 'the truth'...lies upon lies upon lies and legions of people willing, desperate to believe in these sickly untruths. {chas} |
|||
==Family related stuff== |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Blair&diff=prev&oldid=63171273 This edit] removed a few paragraphs of stuff relating to Blair's family, but I'm not entirely conviced - all of it, whilst talking about Blair's family, was in relation to Blair himself. The could easily go under the titles: |
|||
:*Blair and the MMR vaccine |
|||
:*The effect of Catholocism on Blair |
|||
:*Blair and antisocial behavior |
|||
:*Critisim Of Blair's manipulation of the media. |
|||
[Note: I'm not advocating putting them under these titles, just making the point that they are relivant]. I think it should be reinstated. Any thoughts? [[User:Poobarb|Poobarb]] 02:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I've reinstated the Blair's wish to wish to shield their children from the media, and the political controversy over Euan and Nicky's education, both under 'Family Background'. [[User:Countersubject|Countersubject]] 07:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Sometimes you don't know whether to laugh or cry== |
|||
The article claims, " He also said that his determination to "defend" the British way of life outweighed "extremist determination" to destroy it." Tony Blair has done more to undermine the British way of life than anyone else who has ever lived! [[User:Olborne|Olborne]] 18:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Article talk pages are not for people to express their own prejudices about the subject of the article. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 19:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Besides it isnt a fair criticism. If Blair said this there is nothing wrong with including it and if we were each to add our own opinions to or analyze this statement for ourselves it wouldnt be an encyclopedia article. No serious critic believes Blair has undermined the British way of life, ridiculous critiques of Blair merely weaken the validity of the actual criticisms of his time in Number Ten, which of course do have a place in the article. People are saying he has lost his grip, the government have lost their way, the sleaze is worse than during Major's time etc but they are not saying he has undermined the British way of life, or if people are saying this please indicate where exactly, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 20:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I can not help noticing that "Anthony Charles Lynton Blair" is an anagram for "Scottish person who acts exactly like that monster Thatchescu". Am I the only one to have spotted this astounding coincidence? [[User:The Real Walrus|The Real Walrus]] 23:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Blair compared to Thatcher? You flatter him, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 23:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Terms?== |
|||
The article is structured around so-called "terms" of his premiership. Isn't this a bit misleading, given that PMs don't serve specific "terms". Surely a PM stays in power til he/she resigns or dies (though they are obliged to resign if they can no longer command a majority). Terms sounds too much like US presidents! [[User:Bluewave|Bluewave]] 13:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Overall how's Mr Blair done?== |
|||
Well? Badly?[[User:87.113.13.57|87.113.13.57]] 21:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Badly? He's the ''worst'' prime minister in British history; criminally incompetent. [[User:Rcpaterson|Rcpaterson]] 22:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
No way he's one of the worst, far from it but by no means good, just mediocre. |
|||
Doesn't Neville Chamberlain come to mind? |
|||
Actually, no; Neville Chamberlain was a decent man trying to do his best in impossible circumstances. He was been judged by 'Appeasement', generally reckoned a failure; but Britain was simply not ready for war in 1938 and appeasement at least brought the country time. By the spring of 1939 even Chamberlain was aware what kind of man Hitler truly was, and the country was put on a war footing. But if Chamberlain had one grand foreign policy failure Blair's foreign policy is ''nothing but failure''; so lacking in independence, so unwilling to be out of step with George Bush that he had neither the courage nor the independence of mind to call for an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon. Our army is badly over-streched, or credibility is diminishing, we have become a Trojan Horse for terrorism-all of these and more are the responsibility of Blair and his ghastly government. |
|||
[[User:Rcpaterson|Rcpaterson]] 00:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==This article needs a timeline of Tony Blair's life== |
|||
Yes?No?[[User:87.113.24.112|87.113.24.112]] 20:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
No, it's not in other bios so why do it for TB? [[User:Green01]] 2:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC). |
|||
You have to start somewhere and why not start with one of the most important people in the world?[[User:87.112.87.100|87.112.87.100]] 11:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
A timeline sounds like a good idea.[[User:Mushimight|Mushimight]] 14:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 17:23, 24 July 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tony Blair article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 365 days ![]() |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Tony Blair is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 28, 2005. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
![]() | Other talk page banners | ||||
|
Can we hyperlink Sir?
[edit]Can we hyperlink the prefix sir in front of his name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Jocob Philip Smith (talk • contribs) 19:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Come on, give this man a decent picture
[edit]The current one shown on top of this article is putting him in an unfavourable light. 2003:DA:C708:FD00:5110:951:3DE4:1F7E (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- How so? It's the EU's portrait of him as special envoy. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- If you look at the discussions above and in the archive, the current infobox image does not have a huge fan club. The problem is lack of consensus for what should replace it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's the best-quality portrait available of Blair on Commons. The idea that it puts him "in an unfavourable light" is utterly ridiculous. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- If you look at the discussions above and in the archive, the current infobox image does not have a huge fan club. The problem is lack of consensus for what should replace it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2023
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= oder |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to add
under
. 223.25.74.34 (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Not done: The war and various aspects of it are already linked-to in the article.
Tony Blair Rock Opera?
[edit]Under portrayals, it might be worth mentioning that Harry Hill created a rock opera that toured the UK in 2023: [1]https://tonyblairrockopera.co.uk 86.27.111.130 (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Persistent unsourced additions
[edit]@Jambo5555 - Do you have a source for your claims that Blair is placed "in the top teir [sic] of British prime ministers" or that he "often ranks highly" in historical rankings of them? You've failed to provide one in eight edits and your vague gesturing to "historians, other scholars, the public, journalists and MPs" in your edit summary catastrophically fails WP:V. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Tim,
- let's sort this out. Sorry for 'gesturing' and 'catastrophically failing'. I'm judging 'ranking highly' as top ten, but you can dispute that.
- Academics:
- November 2004, https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/rating-british-prime-ministers. Tony Blair ranked 6th.
- August 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5294024.stm. Tony Blair ranked 3rd.
- August 2010, https://web.archive.org/web/20100806030353/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7923790/Gordon-Brown-third-worst-PM-since-1945-poll-of-historians-finds.html. Tony Blair ranked 3rd.
- October 2016, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-worst-prime-minister-ranking-third-since-ww2-a7358171.html. Tony Blair ranked 3rd.
- July 2021, https://theconversation.com/theresa-may-joint-worst-post-war-prime-minister-say-historians-and-politics-professors-in-new-survey-163912. Tony Blair ranked 3rd.
- Public (admittedly, these are breif and not recently published):
- June 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/6242715.stm. Blair ranked 3rd.
- October 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7647383.stm. Blair ranked 6th.
- Journalistic: Doesn't rank highly, I shouldn't have listed that.
- Members of Parliament:
- May 2015, http://politicsblog.ac.uk/2015/05/05/the-prime-ministerial-ratings-game-a-parliamentary-perspective/. Blair ranked 3rd.
- I'm sorry that I made unsourced edits. I assumed that the 'historical rankings of prime ministers' wikipedia article would be sufficent reference. I honestly believe this is relevant to a overview of Blair's position as prime minister, and within the wider context of British politics. I'm sorry you're taking issue with this, I'm not out to execute a imposition of a Tony Blair wikipedia page, I just tried to make a edit I honestly though would be helpful.
- Thanks. Jambo5555 (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Some of these are a bit iffy, like politicsblog and theconversation. Some, like The Independent, are good. If you want to add that, you can put it in the article body itself rather than in the lead. PS: I personally like Blair. I don't like unverified info. That's what I'm taking issue with: not you. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Okay fair enough. Sorry for being a bit of a dick, I've had a really bad day.
- I think I'm just going to leave it. I get what you're saying, certainly politiicsblog isn't a good source, and like you say historical rankings are a bit sporadic and patchy. Jambo5555 (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- No worries. All the best for the future — Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Some of these are a bit iffy, like politicsblog and theconversation. Some, like The Independent, are good. If you want to add that, you can put it in the article body itself rather than in the lead. PS: I personally like Blair. I don't like unverified info. That's what I'm taking issue with: not you. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Image
[edit]I know this has been discussed many a time but I think we should have an image for when he was in office probably a photo used in the 2005 United Kingdom general election infobox as it is an up to date image for when he was in office. RealTaxiDriver (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- TBH I'm not a fan of Tony Blair WEF (cropped). This is another photo where he is pulling a weird face, and it would be better to have one with a more natural expression.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- He actually was in office in 2010, the time of the current image, as special envoy. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- It wasn't his main office. For instant David Miliband has portraits whilst he is President of the International Rescue Committee but he still has his 2007-2010 portrait. RealTaxiDriver (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- He does? I've looked at c:Category:David Miliband, and I can't find a portrait of him as president. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- I meant that there are photos of him when he was in office. RealTaxiDriver (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Not portraits, though. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- I meant that there are photos of him when he was in office. RealTaxiDriver (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- He does? I've looked at c:Category:David Miliband, and I can't find a portrait of him as president. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- It wasn't his main office. For instant David Miliband has portraits whilst he is President of the International Rescue Committee but he still has his 2007-2010 portrait. RealTaxiDriver (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Hyperlink Sir?
[edit]If the right honourable is hyperlinked, shouldn't the Sir Prefix be as well? Edward Jocob Philip Smith (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- No because people generally know what "Sir" means in this context. ... discospinster talk 21:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
In fiction and satire
[edit]Please add the following to the subsection Blair in fiction and satire:
- Director Terry Gilliam and his co-screenwriter Charles McKeown have stated that the character of Tony Shepard, a dubious entrepreneur and conman who turns out to be involved in illegal organ harvesting from impoverished children, in Gilliam's film The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009) is based on "a certain Tony B. Liar", who "would say the most insane things and probably he'd believe them himself".[1][2]
--2003:DA:CF04:925:E8C9:37BF:66C0:7591 (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
References
Shouldn't "Sir" be a prefix?
[edit]Most other pages I see, such as those of Sir John Major, Sir Alan Lascelles, Sir David Attenborough, Sir Vince Cable, and Sir Laurie Bristow have it as a prefix. The edit claims it was edited "As per the very detailed detailed on the template and MOS talk pages" but does not claim which one. Back to prefix?
Edward Jocob Philip Smith (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Look up the MOS talk archives and the infobox talk page - the fact that you failed to do this basic bit of due diligence is telling. Atchom (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- If a user is going to back up their edit by reference to a discussion elsewhere, the very least they can do is indicate where that discussion is. The onus to is on those wishing to make the edit, and the fact you failed to do this (and have still failed to do this) is very telling. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Or you could have looked up the references I provided. I'm even going to link them here to make it easier for you. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2024 archive and Template talk:Infobox person and numerous examples where this was litigated on article talk pages and consensus was for Sir to be in name such as Talk:Ben Key. This issue has been repeatedly litigated since last year and even before that, as a result of a couple of obsessed editors manually changing thousands of infoboxes without consensus, then using this fait accompli (Wikipedia:Fait accompli for their position. It is disappointing that such an experienced editor as yourself should be unable to look up basic facts relating to the dispute. Atchom (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Atchom This is the first time you have provided anything. It's not my. or anyone's, responsibility to go searching for things you hint at. Especially when you're demanding people find something that simply isn't there. Having looked at the pages you have linked, I see no consensus or style guideline on either choice. So for you to claim that either are to be found on these talk pages is totally misleading. The format used here has existed since Blair was knighted in 2022 (you also changed it back then, before being reverted), so claiming this is part of a nefarious edit campaign across multiple articles also doesn't wash.
- So that leaves it as a matter that can be decided on this article alone. Not ideal, it would be good if there was direction given either on the template or MOS. It would prevent a lot of unproductive edit warring on the matter. But there isn't.
- Personally, I have no strong feelings about the matter. Although I do not believe that someone changes their name when they accept a knighthood. They just adopt a title that some people may wish to use before their name. It's a title, not a name. No different from Reverend, or Missus, or Professor, or Doctor. People's name don't change when they adopt any of those, so why should Sir be different? With that in mind, I don't see any convincing argument for Sir being in the Name field of the infobox, and not in the honorific prefix field. Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- MOS calls for "Sir" to be bolded with the other components of the name at the first mention. That's a pretty good indicator that for MOS purposes Sir is to be treated as part of the name. I note that the "name" in the infobox is bolded whereas the "prefix" field is not.
- In 2022 there was a very persistent editor (who went on a site-wide rampage and unilaterally changed thousands of pages as well as the template documentation) who moved "Sir" to prefix. In the case of some pages, "Sir" had been under "name" for decades.
- I believe that the discussions I pinpointed clearly shows that the weight of considered opinion favours Sir as part of the infobox field for name. There was no formal RfC, but clearly the weight of the opinions expressed went to one side.
- As to your arguments, they have been addressed in the very long discussions I cited. You haven't addressed the counter-arguments. I'm therefore to be Kühn and change it. If you disagree, please feel free to launch a full discussion, flagging the wider community as well. Atchom (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- There is already a full discussion, which you are right in the middle of. This article was not part of any "site-wide rampage". You have repeated this edit twice now, you know do not have consensus for it, so claiming it is others' responsibility to "launch discussion" while you again change the article to your preference, is not "being bold", it is edit warring. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Or you could have looked up the references I provided. I'm even going to link them here to make it easier for you. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2024 archive and Template talk:Infobox person and numerous examples where this was litigated on article talk pages and consensus was for Sir to be in name such as Talk:Ben Key. This issue has been repeatedly litigated since last year and even before that, as a result of a couple of obsessed editors manually changing thousands of infoboxes without consensus, then using this fait accompli (Wikipedia:Fait accompli for their position. It is disappointing that such an experienced editor as yourself should be unable to look up basic facts relating to the dispute. Atchom (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- If a user is going to back up their edit by reference to a discussion elsewhere, the very least they can do is indicate where that discussion is. The onus to is on those wishing to make the edit, and the fact you failed to do this (and have still failed to do this) is very telling. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- For posterity, I record here that Edward Jocob Philip Smith has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Atchom (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I would urge those edit warring over this to stop it and discuss the matter here. I'd also like to ask those quoting a MOS guideline regarding where "Sir" should beto please link to it. I can't find anything that unambiguously addresses infobox placement. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't accuse me of edit warring without evidence. I made two edits over almost two weeks to this page. Edward Jocob Philip Smith has been gatekeeping this page and others and you didn't think it fit to say anything. Atchom (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- My evidence is that you have simply repeated the same edit twice, joining in with edits of others that have been reverted, with no attempt to discuss or explain. That is edit warring. Other users have been restoring the page to what it was before, in the light of no consensus for it changing. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- The fact that there are alot of editors who disagree with the forced status quo shows a lack of consensus for having it separated. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 02:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- My evidence is that you have simply repeated the same edit twice, joining in with edits of others that have been reverted, with no attempt to discuss or explain. That is edit warring. Other users have been restoring the page to what it was before, in the light of no consensus for it changing. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Consensus on infobox image
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Tony_Blair%2C_2002_%28cropped%29.jpg/150px-Tony_Blair%2C_2002_%28cropped%29.jpg)
Considering the fact that Gordon Brown and Keir Starmer both have official portraits as their infobox images, I think we should use an image of Tony Blair taken during his premiership. Not doing so would be like using a recent image of John Major for his infobox. So, I'd like to establish a consensus once and for all. IMO, the best choice would be this one. Thoughts? --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- This has been discussed before. I'm not a great fan of the current infobox image, and would go for this one which is on Commons, but there needs to be a clear consensus before changing the infobox image. The image on the right isn't brilliant.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- In this edit you have changed the infobox image without establishing a talk page consensus. You have also said "Article A has this, so Article B should have it as well" which you have been told before is not a valid argument. You are editing articles about Labour at a frantic pace and without establishing consensus for key edits.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Biographies of living persons tend to include recent images of them, and when they die they are changed to an image of them during the height of their fame/importance. I think a more recent image of Blair should be used.
- P.S. There has long been a sentiment in the John Major talk page that the image used in his infobox is too grainy, old, and the angle doesn't show his face well enough. Maurnxiao (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with both of your points. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Biography articles of living people
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in People
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in People
- B-Class vital articles in People
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- High-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- B-Class WikiProject Business articles
- Low-importance WikiProject Business articles
- WikiProject Business articles
- B-Class England-related articles
- Top-importance England-related articles
- WikiProject England pages
- B-Class Scotland articles
- High-importance Scotland articles
- All WikiProject Scotland pages
- B-Class University of Oxford articles
- Low-importance University of Oxford articles
- B-Class University of Oxford (colleges) articles
- WikiProject University of Oxford articles
- B-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- Top-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- B-Class socialism articles
- High-importance socialism articles
- WikiProject Socialism articles
- B-Class organized labour articles
- High-importance organized labour articles
- WikiProject Organized Labour articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Externally peer reviewed articles
- Externally peer reviewed articles by The Independent