Talk:John Major

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article John Major 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.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 30, 2004.
Former featured article John Major 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.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 30, 2004.

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)
The index to Anthony Seldon's biography of John gives her entry as "Major, Norma (née Wagstaff, wife)". Both names are mentioned when her background is briefly described (pages 36-37). Timrollpickering 03:23, 13 July 2007 (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.

It sounds like John Major had the standard British politician's approach of keeping religion, or lack thereof, completely private and out of the public and/or political spheres. Therefore, I am going to remove the mention of his religion, which is as yet unsourced, and for British politics is rarely, if ever, relevant. Let's see if someone puts it back in, and why. 74.98.139.153 02:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Religion is always relevent in politics. The providence of someones moral and ethical beliefs and the possibility of particular views on particular issues therein is implicitly relevent. To say these things are irrelevent is immensely short-sighted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.205.110.52 (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[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)

[edit] "Major lost the 1997 general election to Tony Blair's New Labour party"

This is not a satisfactory sentence, firstly because it seems to imply that an individual lost an election to a party (what's wrong with "Major's Conservatives..." or similar?) and secondly because no "New Labour" party stood in the elections. Known as New Labour and campaigning as New Labour, maybe. But it wasn't the name of the party. 86.143.52.174 22:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have changed to reflect such. It now reads "In 1997 the Conservative Party, under Major's leadership, lost the general election to Tony Blair's Labour party." LordHarris 09:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to the following excerpt: "After the defeat commentators asked whether it would be possible for the Conservatives to overturn such a large majority in a single election. As it turned out, it would not." First of all, there is no citation for any of this. Secondly, it is poorly written, and the second sentence contains too many pleonastic pronouns. Thirdly, just because the large Labour majority wasn't overturned in a single election doesn't mean that such an event was impossible. I mean, by that logic, one could argue that since I crossed the street safely today, it was impossible for me to have been hit by a bus. Right? --216.73.249.195 17:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, rewrite the phrase or remove it. It is poorly written. LordHarris 18:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scale of 1997 defeat

Looks like people are still failing to accept and acknowledge that Blair's Labour polled less votes in 1997 than did Major's Conservatives in 1992. Labour didn't win as such, the Conservative vote just abandoned Major in vast numbers. -- 195.92.40.49 20:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Labour didnt win as such.... What are you on about!? Labour won. LordHarris 21:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Labour actually polled more votes in 1992 than they did in 1997...

Yes that is true, but they polled more votes than the conservatives did in 1997. Therefore they WON.LordHarris 11:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Banking executive?

Major took up a post as an executive at Standard Chartered Bank in May 1965 - This doesn't seem right. How did a 22 year old go from clerking and odd jobs straight into an executive position, even if it was a great correspondence course? I thought he worked his way up from an entry level? Is this a British use of the word executive I don't understand? Conflatuman 02:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Although it is often used as shorthand for a quite senior manager (or the CEO), in this case, 'executive' just means 'manager'. I suppose that neither term is quite appropriate ('bank executive' implies as you have inferred; 'bank manager' implies a branch manager). Bastin 09:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where Big Boyz Fear to Dally

I've removed this

  • Major, John (1979) – Where Big Boyz Fear to Dally and Other Poems (London: Harper Collins)

because I can find no evidence for this book. Harper Collins don't list it in their catalogue —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisboote (talk • contribs) 21:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship with Sarah Hogg

This is mentioned under the Currie / Major affair. Essentially, this appears to be a vague and apparently unsubtantiated assertion by Max Hastings. Interesting the reference to his book is not cited. I propose that it be deleted. The Currie affair is documented and acknowledged and therefore is worthy of inclusion in this article. At the moment, the suggesion of an affair with Sarah Hogg is not. Informed Owl (talk) 08:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Informed Owl

[edit] Major's Business Career

It is stated that Major's business career following his premiership has not been as successful as his public speaking engagements. Is there a source for this? What business has he tried to enter? Informed Owl (talk) 08:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Informed Owl

[edit] He is known to have once said

"Fifty years on from now, Britain will still be the country of long shadows on cricket grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers and pools fillers" - when did he say this? It's relevant to the context.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, how can it be sourced? It would be a welcome addition as long as it's cited with present, reliable sources and isn't just original research. Thanks, Sporker (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Off the top of my head it's in Paxman, Jeremy (1999). The English: A Portrait of a People. London: Penguin. ISBN 0-14-026723-9.  I haven't got a copy to hand, unfortunately. I think Major said it in defending Maastricht or another piece of Euro-treaty stuff, basically to emphasise that the EU wouldn't change the British way of life. Paxman notes that in trying to evoke a British/English way of life he referred to a bygone English idyll which is at odds with the experiences of most, being lager-swilling city-dwellers. Paxman uses it to support his thesis that the English identity is far harder to define that those of the Welsh, Scottish and Irish, who usually define themselves terms of their relationship with the English. It probably made Major seem out of touch with voters, despite being a Londoner who was happy to argue with a crowd on a soapbox with a megaphone. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, this is all over the internet - a quick google finds it quoted on many Major-related sites. The Heavy Weather wiki attributes it to a "speech to the Conservative Group for Europe, 22 April 1993: The Oxford Dictionary of 20th Century Quotations (1998) 204:16". Looking at the comments, they universally relate to JM being out of touch with modern Britain and struggling to find something to represent Britishness. One could pick one or two such commentators to cite in an attempt to avoid weasel words and OR. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External link to Royal Historical Society Bibliography

A while ago I added an external link to a List of books and articles about John Major on the Royal Historical Society Bibliography. This was removed by another editor as being contrary to Wikipedia policy. Following discussions with colleagues, I have decided to query this decision. I do work for the Bibliography, so I admit that there was an element of self-promotion in adding the link, but the Bibliography is free for anyone to use and is the most comprehensive online guide to what has been written about British and Irish history. Many of our records link to online text or online reviews of the works listed; most link to library catalogues to help users to track down hard copy. Is it really contrary to Wikipedia policy to add a reference to an extensive bibliographical resource that readers can use to extend their researches further? Would it have been better to have added the link to the "Further reading" section of the article? This instance raises issues that extend more widely than this particular article as I could potentially add similar links to many articles. Indeed, I was conducting a trial of adding links to articles about recent prime ministers; all but one were removed by the same editor, although the remaining one has not been challenged in the month since I added it. Bibliographer07 (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that any editor would assume good faith, it is surprising that objection could be taken to the link. The fact that you are involved in the project cannot change that. I would have no problem with anyone linking to an organisation like that, so would be very interested to know what the objection is to your having included it. Informed Owl (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl
I agree with Informed Owl. Your link seems to have been very useful and very much in the spirit of Wikipedia, although I am not an expert on WP policy so there may be some legitimate reason against. But one policy I am keen on is to be bold, so I would advocate the link's return at least until the reasons for its removal are made explicit here or in the edit summary. Peeper (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Apparently it as me who removed the link. There is a self-declared clear conflict of interest, so as long as Bibliographer07 doesn't re-add it themselves, I've personally no problem with someone else re-adding it if that is the consensus. Whitstable 13:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you User:Whitstable. Unless anyone disagrees, I shall put the link back tomorrow. I am not entirely convinced by the conflict of interest argument. I don't see that there is one. (But I may have misunderstood a Wikipedia rule) Can an employee of the BBC not quote the BBC website? Or an employee of a reknowned international newspaper quote from it? Were the RHSB operating a site one had to pay to use, then I would be more inclined to agree that it should not be permitted. Not so much because there was a conflict of interest, more because it would be a form of free advertising. But thanks for taking the time to get back to us. Informed Owl (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl
My worry about the conflict of interest argument is that it is not enough to be transparent. it is about being seen to be transparent. And in that case, I wouldn't ever want someone from an company or organisations adding links or information about themselves. Incidentally, however, I do think that history will remember John Major as being a far better PM than he is given credit for. A genuine working class leader - and probably the last one ever in the UK Whitstable 00:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you User:Whitstable. I share your concern about a company posting information about itself. There will clearly be questions about its objectivitiy. While, arguably, informed readers could assess that for themselves, there are clear 'NPOV' considerations. As far as I can tell however, the link here is to another research site. That site does not appear to endorse the subjects of the lists or to express a view about them. It simply lists books in which a given person is mentioned. I do not see therefore that there can be any impropriety in having the link back. Informed Owl (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl
Thanks for all the above comments, and thanks to Informed Owl for reinstating the link. I'm sorry to have taken a while to respond, although I also thought that it might be an idea if I kept my head down for a bit and saw what reaction there might be, given the potential conflict of interest. However, I have now taken the liberty of continuing the discussion on the James Callaghan talk page. As I have said there, if there is a better place to discuss the issues involved, please let me know! Bibliographer07 (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monarch in infobox

A debate over the inclusion of the monarch in the infoboxes of Canadian prime ministers, similar to what is done here and at all other British PM articles, has re-emerged at Talk:Stephen Harper#Re-open discussion: Infobox -- include GG and monarch?. Opinions on the matter are welcome, if not necessary! --G2bambino (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)