Talk:Tony Blair/Archive 4

message: 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.
"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."212.159.30.47 22:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No principles 

message: 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. --Lo2u 20:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. --Lo2u 20:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A mistake 

message: 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? Poobarb 02:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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'. Countersubject 07:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Family related stuff

message: 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! Olborne 18:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Article talk pages are not for people to express their own prejudices about the subject of the article. David | Talk 19:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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, SqueakBox 20:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sometimes you don't know whether to laugh or cry

message: 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! Bluewave 13:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terms?

message: Yes?No?87.113.24.112 20:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs a timeline of Tony Blair's life

message: Ecki added some information regarding additional speculation over his departure. I removed the copyright violations that they had introduced, but retained the core reference addition (after pestering for the original source). However I felt that a discussion over the criticism Blair has recieved may well be in order, so created the above titled new section in the correct place. It does however need more references adding, and ideally any of the counterpoints being flung about. LinaMishima 21:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section: Criticism over his departure 

message: I have dramatically decreased the size of the criticism section as it was getting far too large.  The initial paragraphs of each subsection have been left as a summary but there is probably much more tidying required.  Criticism of Tony Blair has the full content of what used to be that section and also needs work (mainly on references).  violet/riga (t) 22:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: I'm surprised to find no reference to the commonly expressed metaphor of Blair being 'poodle' to Bush.  Is anyone able to mention it with approprtate neutrality? Richard Allen 22:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poodle?

message: In regards to when Blair will leave, or when he wants to leave - I think there're a few fairly obvious dates that he'd still like to be in office. Its been discussed above about Blair perhaps outlasting Margaret Thatcher, which appears unlikely in light of the recent leadership speculation - though I guess not entirely improbable if Gordon Brown implodes. Obviously there's the 10th anniversary in power he'd like to achieve, which is due to happen at the start of May 2007, which also happens to coincide with the ending of Jacques Chirac's political career - also in May 2007. I have little doubt that Tony Blair would be secretly delighted to get to welcome a new French president to the UK, Segolene Royal or Nicholas Sarkozy, effectively by outlasting the great obstructionist (on Iraq of course), and also to attend the G8 summit in Germany, which is due to occur in June 2007. I would expect Blair's thinking to be looking towards some time between June-July-August 2007, depending upon political conditions at the time. I'm willing to bet on this if anyone is game. Anyone? jkm 12:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blair's Departure Date

message: A couple of months ago Blair was reported to have slipped to such a low personal approval rating that he had the lowest approval ratings ever recorded for a post-war Labour Prime Minister, lower even that Callaghan's during the Winter of Discontent or Wilson's after devaluation. The only prime ministers to have got lower ratings since WWII were Thatcher (around the time of the poll tax riots) and Major in the mid-90s. Surely this is worthy of mention in the article? He achieved the lowest approval rating of any post-war Labour PM after previously attaining the highest approval ratings of any PM in the months after his election victory in 1997. If he were a US president, certainly it would be mentioned in the article. 195.93.21.101 22:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He also has the highest approval rating this century.  Shall we record that? AJD 05:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I mentioned that he had the highest approval rating early on and yes that should be mentioned as well. But the fact is that he is the most unpopular Labour Prime Minister of modern times according to approval ratings and that is more than worthy of mention in his biography, it's a notable historical fact. That Thatcher registered record low approval is mentioned in her biography, quite rightly, so the same should be mentioned in Blair's. 195.93.21.101 16:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approval ratings 

message: Quote from the article... "His biographer Rentoul records that, according to his lawyer friends, Blair voiced much less concern regarding party affiliation than to his aim of becoming Prime Minister." Is this fair? I thought both Blair and Cherie were very into Labour from early on, and Blair told people he was a Christian Socialist before he joined the party. Has anyone read Rentoul enough to check this, I don't have a copy to hand. Sounds like a POV fake insertion. MarkThomas 16:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It dosen't sound so implausible that he may have said that at some point. Cherie has always been Labour and to the left of her husband, but it's less clear with Blair. He has told a story of knowing he wanted to enter politics but being unsure of which of the two major parties to join until he read a book on socialism (I forget which) at University which converted him to Labour. It's not impossible that, prior to this, he may have expressed to his friends a desire to become Prime Minister but no preference as to which party. Even so, somebody should check it out and make sure that Rentoul actually says this in his book, or find another reliable source for the same claim, otherwise it should be left out. 195.93.21.101 17:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family Background 

message: I think this should be on his bio as i think people should know of his association with freemasonry ,Gerhard schroeder is also a 33rd degree as is Jesse Jackson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.23.28 (talk • contribs) 
:Any evidence of this? What is the source of this information, and is it reliable? David | Talk 19:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly reliable but this suggestion is made here. BlueValour 01:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If Blair is a 33rd degree Mason it is certainly worthy of mention in the article (or for that matter a Freemason of any degree, although obviously 33rd degree would be extremely noteworthy). I have read that Blair is a Mason on numerous websites but they are all dubious conspiracy websites which often list Prince Charles as a Mason, which is absolutely false (Charles has caused considerable controversy and a serious rift with his father by refusing to join the Freemasons on principle, making the claims of these sites rather laughable and demonstrating that they are making it up as they go along). While the site you linked to does not repeat the same false claims about Charles and does not, as far as I can tell, list any individuals as being Masons are who not, clearly the silliness about various people being members of the "Illuminati" rather rules out the site as a reliable source. However if a more realible source for Blair's membership of the Freemasons can be found, certainly it should be included. --195.93.21.101 03:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blair a 33rd degree Freemason 

message: This is an interesting issue and has been a high profile story in Britain in recent weeks, but in six months time it won't be seen as one of the most notable things Tony Blair has been involved in. We could equally have sections on the row over fox hunting, foundation hospitals, Bernie Ecclestone, laws against religious hatred etc . . . all issues which have dominated the British news agenda in the past, and in which Blair was involved. I don't object to this section being in the entry or the content of it, but in general terms I think we need to resist the temptation to add sections on the hot issue of the day unless it is so significant that we can be pretty sure it will still seem notable (and more notable than the 101 other controversies any Prime Minister gets involved in during his career) in the future. Hobson 00:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Row over Muslim women wearing veils

message: Can anyone explain this,
|- style="text-align: center;"
|-
As far as I can tell Tony Blair is still in the order of precedence in England and Wales as well as in Scotland and so  is Michael Martin, so in what sense is he succeeded by him.  Also on the Michael Martin page he is succeeded by Jack Straw but all three Tony, Michael and Jack are in the Order of precedence in England and Wales!  What am I not understanding.  Also why do these not have dates?
Rex the first talk | contribs 23:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no dates because it's not a succession of date, but a succession of precedence. Personally I think the use of a succession box for the Order of Precedence is totally misleading for this reason alone. It also really doesn't matter today; almost no-one cares. I suggest removing it. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I've done it. Those particular boxes ought to be removed on sight. Mackensen (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that no-one cares and it is no reason to remove the box. It is still relevant however out of practical use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.170.18.8 (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of precedence 

message: I've not edited an FA before, so I've come here first to discuss changes. First of all, should Robert Lindsay's performance as Blair in 'A Very Social Secretary' be mentioned in the portrayals in fiction section? And what about representations by impressionists such as Rory Bremner or Jon Culshaw in the pop culture references section? Hammer Raccoon 22:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrayals in fiction 

message: As discussed above, at the moment this paragraph gives a very misleading and incorrect overall impression that Blair's impeachment was a serious possibility. The House of Commons has never impeached a British Prime Minister and the chances of it happening with Blair's huge majority were effectively nil. The Plaid Cymru action on it was therefore effectively a PR stunt joined in with by a handful of Tory and other MPs. I think we should make this clear. A proposal to do so above agreed by a number of editors was thwarted by reverts from one editor. Can we focus on this please - at the moment it gives a clearly wrong impression of the facts, particularly to US readers who may project the US impeachment process (real and actual) onto the British H-of-C (historical instrument never used). MarkThomas 09:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I agree with you that the section needs revising, your edit removed factual comments i.e. the number of MPs from each party to have supported the move, and replace with an opinion of the likeliness of this occuring. I think you are right in your conclusion, but I think it should be supported by a ref and be in addition to (not instead of) the details you removed. I would also doubt that the term "huge majority" can really be used to describe Tony Blair's position since the 2005 General Election. WJBscribe 09:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have come up with a better wording. See what you think. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Fys I think that is much better. I would however argue that the details of SNP support and the number of Conservative/ LibDem MPs who supported the move are relevant and should be included as well. What do others think? WJBscribe 10:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Supporters seem to have come and gone over the two years since this was proposed which makes it difficult to say. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I regard it as a stunt, but the problem is that the people behind it were adamant that it wasn't - and given that impeachment is technically still feasible (even if it is impractical) we can easily get into deep WP:NPOV problems. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a Wikipedia entry specifically about the attempt to impeach Blairm here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeach_Blair_campaign. I think there is a serious POV issue with giving so much space in this article to something that did not happen. The attempt to impeach Blair is over - the motion has expired. There is no room for debate about the likelihood of it occuring, it seems to me - it could have happened if MPs had supported it, however they didn't. The factual point is that only a small minority of MPs supported the idea of seeing whether or not there were grounds to impeach him. The rest is "what if" history. At the moment impeachment it is not technically feasible as the motion expired with the recent opening of Parliament. In theory any MP could sponsor a new motion, but they have not (in theory MPs could do all sorts of things - they could pass a vote of no confidence in Blair or pass a motion declaring that he was right in every way, but surely the article should be about what has happened and currently is happening). I have cut down the section drastically and I am sure some people will object but please consider that to be accurate, any statement about what "could have happened" or "in theory" should read "if MPs had chosen to do so but they didn't". Don't assume that I am a supporter of Blair or the Iraq war as I am not. Hobson 03:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't see that the page existed. Thanks for pointing it out. I have created a link to it in the relevant section so that those interested can find it easily. I've moved the section Hobson deleted to the talk page of that article so that any material (esp. references) not already incorporated into it are not lost. WJBscribe 03:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impeachment 

message: Was his predeceasor as MP for Sedgefield, before it was abolished in 1974. Dovea 14:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: David Reed was the last person to be "Member of Parliament for Sedgefield", but he wasn't Blair's immediate predecessor. No constituency called Sedgefield existed between 1974 and 1983. The constituency of Sedgefield created in 1983 came from Durham (41.4%), North West Durham (23.9%), Easington (19.0%) and Bishop Auckland (15.7%). So Blair's predecessors were Mark Hughes, Ernest Armstrong, Jack Dormand and Derek Foster. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[David Reed (politician)|David Reed]] 

message: Commonsense, and the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly, require that encyclopedia articles should be written as for a work of reference, not a newspaper. Obviously articles need updating as events happen, but the wording of the text should be valid whenever it is read.
The Tony Blair article is written very much for today's newspaper. We shouldn't say that he "is" PM, but that the Queen asked him to be her PM on <date>. If the article doesn't say he ceased to be PM, the two forms of wording effectively mean the same, but the latter does not need to be updated. And so on, throughout the article. When I raised this point regarding George W Bush, one response was that the article was updated so frequently that Wikipedia guidelines should be ignored; but even in that heavily-trafficked article there was a reference (in late November) to a report "due to be published in September".
I raise the issue here, as when I edited the Bush article to meet the guideline there was much upheaval until I established that there was a very explicit guideline, and no reason to ignore it. Pol098 15:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article written to date quickly: requires much revision to wording 

message: Is this article too long?? Could other bits be spun off into separate articles?? Just a thought. --SunStar Nettalk 19:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is shorter than the George W Bush article... WJBscribe 20:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: Does anyone agree that it would be useful/interesting to know of approval ratings from abroad for TB? I would find it really informative to know how TB is seen from abroad, and to have a separate heading for this seems possible? Such a heading on any leader would be interesting IMO. This could comprise quotes on performance from other leaders or internatonal diplomats for example, and surveys are carried out on foreign leaders by media/news organisations, polling companies etc.
I remember sometime prior to the Iraq war a survey showing that TB was the most respected national leader, I think this was carried out in Australia, obviously things will have changed significantly since then! But such studies are interesting. 
Thoughts?
VT VisionTrap 13:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  View from abroad 

message: We all know Blair's "religious faith" is bogus, and that his use of religion is as cynical as Bush's.  Should no mention be made of this?
:How exactly do "we all know that" (whoever you are) - have you asked him? Or is this a hunch? Please sign your posts using four tilda characters after the text as well. MarkThomas 15:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: Labour's "landslide" victory in the 1997 General Election was won on 43.2% of the vote on a turnout of 71%. Thus Labour's "landslide" victory was won with 30% of eligible voters voting for them. This should be on the page!
In terms of representation gained in the Commons, I feel that it's not too emotive to describe it as such Jatrius 15:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landslide? 

message: Blair is on the record as saying he admired Thatcher and it shows. Thatcher made numerous attacks on the British working class, the poor in general and the vulnerable in particular not one of which Blair has reversed. Those of us old enough to remember know that in 1979 there were practically no young homeless in London. Now there are thousands and it seems that nothing can be done about this. Certainly Blair has done and will do nothing. The famous anagram TONY BLAIR PM = I'M TORY PLAN B is totally accurate.SmokeyTheCat 11:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a couple of lines to this effect. Should be uncontroversial enough I would think. SmokeyTheCat 13:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What opinionated rubbish. Blair is no Thatcher, he is a pure yes man with no iron in his soul. Thatcher had some success breaking the power of corrupt unions but she crertainly failed in breaking the Atlee legacy, a legacy Blair supports. He is an Atlee man not a Thatcher man and you would have to be a left wing exctremeist to believe this stuff, SqueakBox 17:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course saying he admires her leadership style is quite another thing. I removed it not only as unsourced but itrrelevant, nobody in their right monds would sday his leadership style is remotely like hers and while he may admire her steely determination it doesnt mean he admired her policies, SqueakBox 17:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Attlee nationalised and Thatcher privatised SqueakBox. Which one do you think Blair is closer to? Blair is even worse than Thatcher as he now busy privatising the NHS, something she would never have dared to do. SmokeyTheCat 14:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some anonymous person has removed the link to Burlosconi admiring Blair for being a Thatcherite so here it is again. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2029117.stm SmokeyTheCat 14:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagined it wouldnt last as Berlusconi calling Blair a Thatcherite doesnt make him one. Thatcher did her best to roll back the tide of socialism in the UK but failed. Blair hasnt even tried and Britian continues as a socialist "paradise". Would that Blair did privatise the NHS, abandon all welfare for under 70's, means tested education etc but he wont, SqueakBox 16:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bloody hell, I'm glad you're not the prime minister.  MFlet1 23:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thatcherite 

message: "Row over Muslim women wearing veils"
i think we should change this, because some americans may think are being instructed to run over certain muslim women with their canoes and kayaks.
but seriously. what is the policy on using american english, versus british english? is "row" a form of slang?
*Comment. I've change the word row to debate to avoid confusion. Even if not confusing, row doesn't seem like very encyclopedic language. As to policy about using US English vs. British English, see WP:ENGVAR. WJBscribe 04:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, it's read by those who speak different kinds of English, so it would be useful to avoid words they don't understand, or which mean something different to them. Spelling's a different matter entirely! Countersubject 22:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  speak american! 

message: Does it really need to say "First Lord of the Treasury, Minister for the Civil Service" in the infobox? None of the former PMs have that. Philip Stevens 06:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest it is the other articles that need correcting. The Prime Minister is those also, which is something that doesn't neccesarily go with PM (but has by tradition for over 100 years).  There is a question of whether it's redundant as someone can look up 'Prime Minister of the United Kingdom' and presumably find that, as it has been the case since 1905.  Seen as it's listed on the article in roles he holds, rather than just PM, I am reinistating The18thDoctor 09:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *My point is that if you add these terms to Blair, you will have to add them to all others who have had these titles. Also, to be accurate, you would need to remove the term "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" from the infoboxs of those who didn't use the term (that's from Robert Walpole to Arthur Balfour). Philip Stevens 10:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title in infobox 

message: I have re-added this. I wish whoever's deleting it would stop. It's only an internal link to another Wiki page so can hardly be controversial.SmokeyTheCat 16:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it comes from a reliable source? i kan reed 16:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And in 2001, and in 1997... I hate the buggar but I can't say he's not popular.  I also note he's listed for being in the hundred worst, but not the hundred best at the same time.  Just because something is verifiable does not automatically make it's inclusion in an article NPOV.  Saying it should be included as it is non controversial as it is in another article is not correct.  Inthe other article there is context, that the reader needs to navigate away from this page to find.  This falls foul of Wiki policy : NPOV forks, undue weight (through misrepresentation).  Besides all this if it's so important as to be included, then why is it not included in the article Criticism of Tony Blair?  Also stating "Signs of increasing public animosity towards him" is either original research or unsourced, as their is no base to increase from and no accurate test of such.  Clean it up, balance it, and make sure it's proportional to its significance - then it might be worthy of entry.  However, for the moment it is not.  The18thDoctor 10:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the key point about these umpteen "100 best/worst this or that" TV polls is that they are not scientifically conducted opinion polls or large-scale referenda but TV-land "hour-fillers" - cheap TV of an amusing nature, stitching together cheap clips with a think cover story. I don't think I've ever seen such a poll advertised but presumably they are posted on the C4 website, etc. Hardly notable results. There are dozens mentioned in different articles on Wikipedia and IMO they should all be deleted. MarkThomas 15:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hundred Worst Britons 

message: While the facts in the two categories on information in this section are generally right, the linking of the two in a single section is a blatantly agenda-led,  wildly POV attempt to explain Blair's entire middle east  policy in the light of links to Labour fundraisers. This is not up to wiki standard, and the "middle east policy" bit should be combined or followed on from "relationship with george bush / united states" , and "links with Israel" underneath as another section. 
Gkj678 11:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Middle East policy and Israel" section

message: Joe Lieberman is listed as an American Democrat, although he was lasted elected as an independent and is recorded as such in the senate. I think that this should be adjusted in the article. Please make the change.--Smallchanges 12:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Senator Lieberman still considers himself a Democrat, and is registered as a Democrat.  He is listed in the official Senate records as an Independent Democrat, so that's what he is officially for the Senate's purposes, but for all other he is a Democrat. WBHoenig 16:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joe Lieberman 

message: I didn't see any article referring to Blair's role during the death of Princess Diana except for the section His role in the Media. I was wondering whether the film The Queen was accurate in the events it portrayed between Queen Elizabeth II and Tony Blair. Berserkerz Crit 06:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The film is a work of fiction, not a documentary. It is not a reliable source. AJD 13:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I surmise as much that it is not a reliable source and that it is a work of fiction but I've read that it is based on anonymous sources the director or producer interviewed and corroborated by the number of those interviewed. Berserkerz Crit 19:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Queen certainly opened eyes towards Blair's actions and appreciation from the people, and though you can't cite the film, that doesn't mean it wasn't true. I agree with Berserkerz Crit that this information, re his popularity over the royal family for that period of time, is vital, and that other sources should be referenced. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re the Queen 

message: This article is featured, yet far over the suggested limit (32 kb), at 95 kb. As I'm not an editor of the page, I don't want to toy with it, but it seems like it's in need of some grave section breaking; those appear to be the Criticism section (for which there is already a main article) and each of his terms, which might also be combined into one article. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: A recent edit by Blanchecart reverted the main picture of Tony to the previous one. I happen to think the image put there by Rangerwave (this revision) is much nicer (and further, Blanchecart's contribs suggest he's not Blair's biggest fan anyway), but I'm reluctant to revert without other peoples' opinions. Thoughts? matt.smart talk/contribs 14:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most recent photo is rather questionable. You could argue it shows him defeated and beleagured, but in the very least it is a bad photograph of him given his facial expression. We tend to opt for more official photographs for politicians, because if we enter the game of allowing embarrassing photos as the main photo for some, inevitably we will have people out there trying it for every politician under the sun. I am replacing it with the more official one on this basis, its just not a game we should get into. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice one; thanks. matt.smart talk/contribs 15:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what's so great about the current photo; he looks silly.  The image to the right was the main image of the article for many months.  While it is not "formal", neither is the present image, and it certainly isn't as odd.  It is also of higher quality and resolution.  --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Feel free to add it lower down or whatever, but this is not an appropriate image to have as the main photo for the same reason that the full size image of this would not be appropriate for the main image on Bill Clinton's page. Yes, you could call it a serious photo, but its not the right sort of photo for the infobox. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I know that you disagree, but lets get down to why. Its a standard that we opt out of using candid photos, especially in the middle of them speaking, as their main photo. This isnt something done preferentially, its tried across the board. Take a gander at Adolf Hitler, even he gets a photo he is posing for rather than a candid one midspeech. When the only thing available is a candid photo, by all means it can be gone with, but when better alternatives out there, such as ones they are posing for (which tend to be official,) those are by far preferable. If we had an official portrait of Blair, and I bet there is one out there, it would be even better. But using this candid photo of him in the middle of saying something is inappropriate. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't use the official photo of Blair since it is protected by Crown Copyright; candid shots are the only images that can be used.  As for that Clinton image above, it is totally different when compared to the Blair image to the right and is not helpful for discussion on this issue.  The image on the right is candid I suppose, but he doesn't have any strange look on his face except that of seriousness, not a strange smile in an informal and probably unexpected pose with Rice. --tomf688 (talk - email) 23:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I cropped the image from the link above (to the left) and uploaded it to the Commons.  Not sure if it is better, though. --tomf688 (talk - email) 02:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Its the same sort of image as the one with Condoleeza, but not as good quality. I think the Condoleezza cropped one is still the best one we have. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, either are preferable to the current one. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Image of Tony Blair 

message: I added this section. SmokeyTheCat 11:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship with Rupert Murdoch

message: The other Tony Blair is red-linked. Surely the disambiguation page is otiose? Terwilliger 21:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation page