Talk:John Major

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is undergoing a featured article review to ensure that it meets the standards of a featured article. Please add a comment to assist the process and/or be bold and improve the article directly. If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Major article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Featured article star John Major is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 30, 2004.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents

[edit] older entries

This is not the original photo of John Major. Why has someone replaced the original with this rather stupid looking sunglasses photo.

The sunglasses photo is free and so should be used above any non free image. Arniep 22:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The first comment is right. The cricket photo is very stupid looking. The other image can be used by anyone so I don't see the problem. --82.4.86.73 19:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

the cricket photo doesn't need to be there when there is a portrait on the Wikimedia Commons, why remove it?--Mishmashmosh 23:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ditto with the third comment, it looks utterly ridiculous.
The photo with the sunglasses is bad. Where is "the other photo", and can someone put it in instead? Tamino 16:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
That picture is Very bad, he looks ridiculous. He was the Prime Minister of Great Britain for 7 years, lets have a decent picture for goodness sake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charmed88 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The website www.johnmajor.co.uk states it is a free resource website why can't we use a picture from that? Sorry forgot too sign--Ruddyell 22:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That site is the free website resource of UKPOL magazine, which is not the same as saying that all the resources on the site are free :) See also my comments at Image talk:JohnMajor.gif --Dr pda 19:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved Major-Currie to the end to make room for the no-majority stuff, though it's not really comfortable there. I'm not sure what the right way to do it is; despite the thematic link to back-to-basics and sleaze, the affair doesn't really belong to 1997 either, as it was long over by then. --rbrwr

"In 1979 he was elected to Parliament as MP for Huntingdon, having failed to win the same seat on his first attempt in 1976."

This can't be right. There was no general election in 1976 and the Tories have never lost Huntingdon. Adam 03:31, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/673348.stm indicates that he was chosen by the Huntingdon Conservative Party association in 1976 to be their candidate in the next election, which turned out to be in 1979. Article corrected. Pete 11:54, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Further detail re his early parliamentary election contests taken from e.g. http://www.lecturenow.com/People/JohnMajor.htm. Loads of sites appearing on Google searchs appear to confirm this, though as usual there seems to be an awful lot of plaigarism going on amongst political biography webpage writers! Maybe someone could flick open his memoirs to confirm the details next time they are in a good bookshop. Pete 12:12, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Pete, I have the US edition of Mr. Major's book (ISBN 0060196149). Major talks about being selected as Huntingdon[shire] PPC. If you wish to read it for yourself, it's pp. 57-60. Here's the summary:
  1. Major loses both 1974 elections in St. Pancras; He puts in resumes in various seats across England;
  2. He applies and is selected for Huntingdon[shire]; Major and his family moves to the area in the fall of 1977.
Based on this, the 1976 date is likely correct. -- iHoshie 08:50, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Am I the only person who finds this funny?:

He ... left school at 16 to work as a bus conductor, from which he was sacked because of poor mathematics skills. [...] He eventually went to work for Standard Chartered Bank where he rose quickly through the ranks. Just goes to show you don't need to be able to count in order to be a banker! Arwel 11:14, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

According to numerous sources, he never worked as a bus conductor. He applied to be a bus conductor but his application was rejected. A former LT employee, in an interview shortly before the 1997 election, claimed that she had rejected his application because of his poor arithmetic. I've not read Major's biography so I don't know what he claims, but this 400 word summary courtesy of The Guardian [1](which is perhaps tongue in cheek) suggests that he was too tall. Mintguy (T)


Someone changed the three bastard from Peter Lilley, Michael Portillo and Michael Howard (politician) to Peter Lilley, Michael Portillo and John Redwood. But The Observer article shown at the bottom of the page indicates that the bastards were the former. Mintguy (T) 22:30, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Here's the diff in question. --rbrwrˆ
FWIW, I thought it was Redwood, not Howard, too...
James F. (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
From what I can recall at the time and throughout the rest of Major's premiership, any combination of three of those four were cited on different occassions. The circumstances of the comment - a private conversation at the end of a very long week when Major had not had much sleep - do lead credence to Major's assertion in his memoirs that "bastards" actually referred to critics on the back benches and that he had not had specific Cabinet Ministers in mind, plucking the number at random. It's possible that the Press put two and two together, working on different information from Major. Timrollpickering 09:49, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

How can he have been "born" as John Major Ball, but "christened" as John Roy Major (without the Ball)? Was his christeneing or baptismal name different from his legal name?? JackofOz 12:00, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

He wasn't born as John Major-Ball; the family had abandoned that surname by the time. The original name of his father was Abraham Thomas Ball (known as Tom) but when he went into the circus he adopted the name "Tom Major" and later it became part of his legal name too. Evidently when their son was born in 1943, Tom and Kitty Major wanted to give him a middle name but could not decide what it would be, and had not settled on one by the time the Birth Certificate had to be drawn up. They had chosen 'Roy' by the time of the christening. English law allows a person to change their names at any time as long as it is not for the purpose of fraud. Dbiv 01:25, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This needs to mention his accident in Nigeria. I will dig up info from his autobio. Morwen - Talk 10:35, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cabinet

The cabinet section on this page is a mess. Can't we find a better way of doing it? Mintguy (T)

I prefer the method used on most PMs' pages (as it is much clearer and allows you to see the changes in order), but some people seem to think it takes up too much space. Proteus (Talk) 18:20, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

i think some connection should be made between the Major/Currie affair and his support of David Mellor. At the time few could understand why honest John Major stuck his neck out for Mellor but knowing he also had an affair makes sense.

The fact that David Mellor was his closest friend and cabinet ally is probably a more likely explanation
Apropros nothing at all, is there any way to include the fact that despite his grey image, almost everyone that met him found him warm, witty and engaging - women especially.
Even Vanessa Feltz is among the women on record as saying he was very attractive! chrisboote 12:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PM table

I think there is a formatting error on the PM table - "The Rt Hon. John Major" doesn't seem to be centered above the picture. Also, was his KG really a "retirement honour"? Wouldn't his CH be the "retirement honour"? – ugen64 23:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

There can only be a certain number of Knights of the Garter at any one time - ex-PMs are usually given the honour, but Major had to wait years for someone to die for him to replace.

[edit] Titles in photo captions

Why is it that the photos of British PMs are captioned with their name as at the time of their retirement as PM, and not with any later titles? OK, maybe they only became famous because they were PM, but the Wiki article is supposed to be about their whole life, not just about the period of their premiership. Surely the fact that Major is now a knight is relevant to his photo, no matter when it may have been taken. JackofOz 02:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

It's partly because the photo is part of the PM infobox, which details their career as PM. It'd be perfecly acceptable to put the "Sir" in the other photos. (It also helps identify quickly what name they were PM as, especially for people who were promoted in the peerage or what not after their premiership.) Proteus (Talk) 07:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Refused telephone calls

User:Lapsed Pacifist added the following scentance:

In March 1995, Major refused for several days to answer the phone calls of United States President Bill Clinton, angered at his decision to invite Gerry Adams to the White House for Saint Patrick's Day.

I've removed it, as this seems doubtful to me (if only as I doubt Clinton went round phoning Major up...) Could you provide a source? Iain 08:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See [2]

Lapsed Pacifist 08:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reputable enough for me! Ive replaced the quote, with the reference. Iain 12:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This event was well reported on 'lobby terms' at the time! Tgsh2005 30 June 2005 22:08 (UTC)

[edit] Featured?

Think this ought to be a FARC unless we can fix it up. No references, no mention of the word "privatisation". No mention of him being on the Conservative Party's "advisory" group they made a song and dance about. No mention of his visit to I think Nigeria which nearly cost him his life. The paragraph about Northern Ireland appears to portray him as weak, which is hardly fair considering the historical context. The rise through the ranks from being Etc etc. Morwen - Talk 16:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Half Blood Prince

Is Major really "most likely the Prime Minister featured in J.K. Rowling's novel Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" as it claims in the media representation section? I can believe it, but I can also believe that the Half Blood PM is Blair or a combination of the two or indeed a parody of the whole of British political life. Is there any evidence for this? If not I'd suggest it is just hearsay and has no basis in fact.

The sixth Harry Potter book is set in 1996, so it would be Major, but only if the Prime Ministers in J. K. Rowling's universe are the same as the ones in ours. As his predecessor was referred to as "he" (and so presumably isn't Thatcher), it's not really reasonable to assume they are. Proteus (Talk) 13:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Norma Major

I can't find any evidence that Norma Major's surname was ever Wagstaff. John Major's own autobiography only ever refers to her and her family members as Johnson and makes no mention of the name given here. I will change the entry in this article to Johnson, but if anybody has any sources for Wagstaff then do amend. Peeper 21:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Her father was Norman Wagstaff who died shortly after she was born, she then took her mother's name. Arniep 23:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top image

A number of users have been removing the free use image at the top of the page. Free images should be used where it accurately represents that persons likeness which the cricket photo does. The other photo was uploaded by a new user who has no knowledge of copyright, also, that photo is of too low a resolution for the infobox. Arniep 21:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't the picture on the foreign editions of this page be better? It's free

It can not represent someone well when the person is wearing sunglasses! This photo urgently needs replacing!! --82.4.86.73 17:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the sunglasses one, if it's in the PD and not copyright? I don't think it's unflattering- in fact, given Major's reputation as a fairly dour man, I think he may even be rather partial to it. In any case, photos that are copyright cannot be used under any circumstances (without permission), full stop. User:Badgerpatrol 23:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It just looks stupid. Get rid.

In my opinion, the current one definitely needs changing. Surely a better one can be found? While I'm not sure his sunglasses photo was great, his current one is certainly worse. Could someone maybe find out about the legal rights to using this photo? --A.szczep 09:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The current picture is what he looked like while he was Prime Minister, that is far better than one with sunglasses where it was hard to tell that it actually was him.--Charmed88 16:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Rt. Hon.

Why did Arniep remove the Rt. Hon from the start of the page? I would like to put it back. Captainj 01:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It's best to put comments at the bottom of the page- I don't want to interfere, but you may want to move your comment and this to there. I don't know- I didn't hear that Major had been removed as a PC, and in practice this would be very unusual. I suspect it may be because of a general change in the protocol for denoting honorific titles on Wikipedia pages rather than being specifically about Major. I believe there has been some controversy regarding this subject in the past. You might want to ask him/her yourself on his/her talk page: User talk:Arniep. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 02:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment moved. I posted to this page so that everyone could discuss the comment. I note however a lack of consistency in using Rt. Hon. Example: Neil Kinnock's article has it, Margaret Thatcher's doesn't? Has there actually been a discussion elsewhere on this issue?Captainj 12:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
They should all be removed from the header as is the standard in all other mainstream reference works. I have removed it from Kinnock. Arniep 00:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peerage refused

I remember reading press reports at the time he stepped down from Parliament that he didn't want to join the Lords, something to do with the whips (he didn't want to feel obliged to attend important votes). If I get a chance I will look for verification. Captainj 12:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:British political scandals

I stand corrected re the Currie affair- it wasn't whilst he was PM, but it was definitely a scandal! (See page history) . Badgerpatrol 14:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the Edwina Currie Affair was never a political scandal because it was only revealed long after both Major and Currie had ceased to be actively involved in politics. David | Talk 15:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Downing Street Declaration

The section on Major's Northern Ireland policy seems inadequate. The Downing Street Declaration of 1994 isn't even mentioned and there's no reference to the fact that Major started the peace process which culminated in the Good Friday agreement (even Blair concedes this). There's interesting stuff on Major's effactiveness in Northern Ireland in Christopher Meyer's book.KRC58 19:26, 26 March 2006 (KRC58)

[edit] Middle name

According to http://www.angeltowns.com/town/peerage/02garter.htm (very bottom of the page) Major's middle name is Roy. 203.100.217.59 13:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't on his birth certificate, and it isn't used in official documents (like his appointment as a Knight of the Garter — note the inclusion of both of Lord Bingham of Cornhill's first names), so it's obviously not officially part of his name. Proteus (Talk) 14:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
This is actually explained in the article. Major was christened "John Roy Major" but only "John Major" appears on his birth certificate. He used to use his middle name but after the 1979 general election it no longer appears on his electoral nominations. Of course, in English law one may use any name one wishes to. David | Talk 10:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lord of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council

Does this title really exist? It is similar to the full name of the Privy Council, but I have not heard this title before. Thus, it may be wrong.--218.102.233.118 16:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1995 Leadership contest

"...eight abstentions and two MPs not voting at all." What is this supposed to mean? How is that not ten abstentions? Richard75 12:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

eight were present and did not vote, two were not present chrisboote 15:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking much the same. Surely he is an 'other'. Alci12 21:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

Does anyone have a source for John Major's religion? I can't find one. Someone added that he is an Atheist. --Charmed88 18:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted it, seeing as there's no source. I found the following:

Although Mr Major did not write much about religion in his autobiography, his background was Christian. "I come from a home where religion was a private matter. My parents were Christian. They lived by Christian ethics. They were more Christian than many people who are more ostentatious about their faith. They did not think their faith depended on speaking about their religion. They thought it was more reflected in the way they lived. [3]

In 2003 Christian Voice highlighted a speech Sir Mark gave on 'the losers of globalisation' at the Ditchley Foundation, a prominent insider group chaired by Rt Hon John Major, who is also UK chairman and a director of weapons giant the Carlyle Group and a fan of the anti-Christian philosopher Voltaire. [4]

Seeing as he states "I come from a home where religion was a private matter", I don't see the need to include it in the infobox for this article. JRawle (Talk) 20:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • There is too much interest placed on a person's religion these days, as JM states,'it's a private matter'. Heleshap 30 August 2006.

[edit] Policies and time in government

I feel that since there is no other article on the UK governments of 1990-2 and 1992-7, there should be more here about the actual legislative programme and policies during that time (rail privatisation and the "People's Charter" as examples) with which Major was naturally most identified. --80.47.183.18 09:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Top image again sorry

I have just removed a speedy deletion tag on the image because a source is clearly stated, and the tag was placed because there was "No source information". I'm sorry if I have offended anyone by preventing the deletion of a FREE picture--Ruddyell 23:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Because the old image was bound to be deleted, I have replaced it. I promise I won't touch it again--Ruddyell 17:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] His Birthday !!!

how can john majors birthday be on the 30th February there is no such date !!!!

Well spotted. Older versions of this page say 29 March, so I've changed it back. Someone's hilarious joke, no doubt. Robin Johnson (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone's vandalism. 29 March sounds correct, SqueakBox 20:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quality Scale

I have just noticed this is FA on the scale. How is this possible. The article is full of loads on unsourced statements and has only a few references! NO Feature article should have a statement like "By the 1997 general election Major had come to be seen as an unfashionable, ineffectual and grey figure unable to control an increasingly divided and sleaze-ridden party." Not only should this phrase be reworded but the article status should be changed. I have added it for featured article review.

LordHarris 23:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1992 Election reference

The absolute votes which has a reference needed tag, is also mentioned in the 1992 article.

Table 1a [5] on page 9 shows the results from 1945 through to 2001, and confirms the results for that period. 2005 Labour had the largest share and they polled only 9 562 122 votes due to declining turnout. In 2nd place is Labour in 1951, where they won the popular vote, but had 26 fewer MP's. Is this a good enough cite? Catwhoorg 17:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer

Its absolutely correct that he is not a peer, and out of choice therefore for us to imply he is is very much incorrect, violates WP:BLP and must be removed on sight, even treated as simple vandalism, SqueakBox 20:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/Talk%7EJohn_Major_074c.html"