Talk:John Major

Edwina Currie

Why no mention of the affair in Wikipedia about his affair between 1984 to 1987 2.27.138.177 (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the article. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I read it and couldn’t see reference to Edwina Currie. Her page, by contrast, has an “Affair with John Major” heading. Boodyinbkavk (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

In "Early parliamentary career (1979–1987)" it says: "t was later revealed (in 2002) that during this period Major had conducted an affair with Edwina Currie, a Conservative backbencher and later Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Health and Social Security; the affair ended in 1988." Are you suggesting it needs its own section? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The affair has had its own section since March 2007. Currently titled John Major#Revelation of affair. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Removal of his affair with Edwina Currie

Why was it removed? It provided further context and included a libel case. Greenpark79 (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, the affair was already covered in John Major#Revelation of affair, which also mentions the libel case. The section you introduced didn't provide additional relevant information, except for the theatre play and the TV documentary. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Also see thread #Edwina Currie above. It seems that several people don't know how to use the text search function in their browser. "Edwina" or "Currie" aren't common words, the section about the affair shouldn't be hard to find. Strange. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

You've either wilfully misunderstood the context or refuse to acknowledge why I added it to his personal life. Affairs tend to be documented there. Furthemore the subheading of "Revelation of affair" but doesn't directly mention with whom? You haven't provided any reason for why Edwina shouldn't be named especially as she was the one whom revealed it?

You've removed the additional quotes from former politicians and other public figures from 2002 upon hearing news of the affair and instead just refer his campaign for the 1994 election? Your sentence refers to "Commentators" but doesn't name them and the citation refers to Tony Newton's obit?

For the avoidance of doubt the quotes emphasised how politically impactful the affair would have been if widely known at the time. Instead you've downplayed this context. You've also removed Lynn Barber's article which did explore the context of Scallywag closing.

Finally, Clare Latimer also sued the magazines which you've removed as solely Major, which was also cited. Greenpark79 (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

"wilfully misunderstood", "refuse to acknowledge" – No, we simply have different opinions about how the affair should be presented in our article. See WP:AGF.

"Affairs tend to be documented there [in Personal life sections]" – Is that so? I'm not aware of a guideline or convention. I've often seen relationships or affairs mentioned in celebrity articles, but it's usually not more than a sentence for a case like this.

"Edwina shouldn't be named" – She is named in the section, obviously. We could rename the section from "Revelation of affair" to "Revelation of affair with Edwina Currie" or something similar. A bit long, but clearer. A few years ago, the section's title was "Major/Currie affair".

"You've removed the additional quotes" – Most of these quotes were much too long and detailed, to the point of being gossipy. If you can provide quotes that actually add relevant information, we can talk about adding them to the article.

"Your sentence refers to "Commentators" but doesn't name them" – It's not my sentence, I didn't write it. I think it's quite common to use words like "commentators" when several people have made similar comments. How would the article be improved by naming individuals?

"emphasised how politically impactful the affair would have been if widely known at the time" – In the section about the affair there's a quote saying Major probably wouldn't have become PM if the affair had become public. Maybe we should add something to the effect that this wasn't an isolated opinion but also voiced by several others. But again, I don't think adding several verbatim quotes would be the best choice. (I also think we should shorten and simplify the sentence about Newton. Does it matter that it appeared in an obituary?)

"You've also removed Lynn Barber's article which did explore the context of Scallywag closing" – I found that paragraph rather unclear, and it seemed a bit off-topic. Maybe we could use an article like (a ref in Scallywag (magazine)) to explain the effects of Major's lawsuit.

"Clare Latimer also sued the magazines" – Correct, but since this is a biographical article about John Major, I'm not sure how relevant this detail is.

– Chrisahn (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll ping a few editors who are among the top contributors of the article: Neveselbert, Rlink2, Michaeldble, WisDom-UK. I hope that's OK. Feel free to invite others. Wikipedia discussions usually are more fruitful when more than two or three users join in. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, thanks. Greenpark79 (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Prince of Onions

This question was removed earlier, but I think it's an important question that's not addressed in the article. Why did they call John Major the Prince of Onions? Both this nickname and its origins are missing from the page. ~2026-26420-50 (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Who called him that? Please provide links to reliable sources that use it. —C.Fred (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Infobox image

Personally, I think we should use a more recent image as the infobox image since Major has left office as Prime Minister in the 90s. So I think we should use the current infobox image since its the highest quality most recent image we have of him. At the very least if we believe the picture should be one from his tenure as Prime Minister it should be one towards the end of his premiership. Fixingthelies2025 (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. Per WP:LEAD and MOS:IMG, living former leaders of a country preferably has their lead image on their WP article during their leadership rather than the most recent available, unless, of course, they are still just as politically active, which for Major, is not the case.

Since this discussion has already been dead in the past 2 days, I don’t think we should have multiple choices to select the lead image, (in my opinion, the most ideal strategy for an image change proposal like this) unless more people would engage. KagedCroc1 ⭐️ 21:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for my late response. But since you say this I think we should replace the image with this one, since it was in his Premiership

Fixingthelies2025 (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The current image is clearer and less blurrier than this, not to mention his slightly odd expression in it, and the fact that the image is actually retouched, therefore not authentic. KagedCroc1 ⭐️ 16:25, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense, alright, I agree with leaving the current one then. Fixingthelies2025 (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

For next time, if you want to propose an image change, please do not change the image to your proposed image until a consensus has been made. KagedCroc1 ⭐️ 21:07, 29 June 2026 (UTC)