Talk:James Callaghan

message: Is this good enough for WP:FAC?  Should I WP:PR it first? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC?

message: :Some six months on, author of below comment notes: the below comment was made by me some six months ago, and then at a later time I felt embarrassed by it and tried to retract it (this time not logged in properly to wikipedia, but just making an edit as an anonymous IP address.) Another user "un-did" my retraction and restored it. To this day I have no way of knowing on which level my "un-redactor" was being kind to me or just perhaps preemptive of some other potential censor's work, but a half a year on may I say that learning more of the UK's political history has been absolutely instructive for me in all sorts of ways. So that I am now doubly embarrassed for ever having raised a peep. But there are those of us in the 'States who know where our system of government (good or ill) originated. Still trying to improve our International Relations. Alan Canon 09:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of Flanders and Swann Reference

message: I have added some extra information on Callaghans early years before he was MP for Cardiff. I have also made a new subsection on his personal life - moving paragraphs on his wife and children etc into this section. LordHarris 15:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit 

message: An unsigned user added this comment in the main text which I RVed: I think this is incorrect. According to Andrew Robert's biography, Lord Salisbury was 6ft 4in. Don't know if this is true, any thoughts? MarkThomas 09:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height 

message: I have just purchased the new biography of Callaghan and will be adding lots of new info to the article. I have already made additions to his parents, his time in the royal navy, his standing for MP in Cardiff and his subsequent landslide election. I have also added references to support some of the new information. As I continue to read the biography I will make new additions to the article. If anyone is interested in working together to make the article on Callaghan more accurate, more academic and in more depth I would welcome the opportunity; especially on his years as Prime Minister (the section is very short giving his time and impact (winter of discontent) at Number 10. LordHarris 16:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit

message: Surely Jim Callagan would have dispensed with the title "Lieutenant" when he left the RNVR after the war? Millbanks 11:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Gazette lists his rank in the 1950s listing Kernel Saunters 11:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lieutenant?

message: A while ago I added an external link to a List of books and articles about James Callaghan on the Royal Historical Society Bibliography. This was removed by another editor as being contrary to Wikipedia policy. The same thing happened on some other pages about recent prime ministers and it has been discussed on the John Major discussion page. There seemed to be agreement that the link - giving access to a resource which is the most comprehensive online guide to what has been written about British and Irish history - was a useful one, but some doubt remained as to whether I should add such links myself, since I work for the Bibliography (although the service is run from London University, is supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council and is free for anyone to use, so I am not advertising in a commercial sense.)  
I thought, therefore, that it might be worth continuing the dicussion here.  I can see the logic behind a bar on editors promoting resources with which they are themselves involved, but I don't see how such a bar could be enforced - I know that others have done it without it being questioned.  It's also the case that permanent deep links of the kind that I can add could not readily be added by someone working outside our project.
This instance raises issues that extend more widely than this particular article as I could potentially add similar links to many articles. So if there is a better place to discuss it, I hope someone will suggest it (I am new to editing Wikipedia myself!) Bibliographer07 (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link to Royal Historical Society Bibliography 

message: Can someone confirm that Callaghan was indeed an atheist?  That was clearly not the case when he met his wife.  Was he both a "Baptist" and an "atheist"?  Richard David Ramsey 04:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Life 

message: I'm surprised that this article makes no mention that Callaghan led the opposition to In Place of Strife in 1969. The fact that Callaghan managed to block legislation which would have made much of the union activity in the Winter of Discontent illegal, was one of the greatest ironies of his career, which came back to haunt him. G-Man ? 02:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: In place of Strife

message: It is mentioned in the article that Callaghan narrowly beat George Thomas to be the Labour party candidate for Cardiff South in 1945. I assume that this si the same George Thomas who stood and was elected in Cardiff Central that year (George Thomas, 1st Viscount Tonypandy). Could someone confirm this so that we can link him?--Peter cohen (talk)
Yes, it was that George Thomas. Sibboleth (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Thomas 

message: The article gives the impression that vouchers were introduced in 1968.
Actually, they seem to have been introduced in 1962, in an attempt to restrict
immigration into Britain.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.108.96 (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1962 

message: Has anyone got information about Lord Callaghan's funeral and burial? Thanks. Cyan22 (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  funeral and burial 

message: Although the body says " Although there is much doubt about how much belief Callaghan retained into adult life, the Baptist nonconformist ethic was a profound influence throughout all of his public and private life," the infobox jumps the gun and calls him an outright atheist. 
Well, what was he?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simfan34 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: Why is there no mention of the IMF loan of 1976? One of the most humiliating events in modern British history and one of the defining points of Callaghan's time in office.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.95.153.254 (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMF Loan down the memory hole 

message: The "Winter of Discontent" section includes the following sentence:
:In the build up to the election, the Daily Mirror and The Guardian supported Labour, while The Sun, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, and The Daily Telegraph supported the Conservatives.
An IP editor keeps trying to insert "The Times" as a supporter of the Conservatives, despite the source above indicating that it showed no particular support to any party in 1979. I have tried to engage the editor in discussion but have had no response. I am not sure if that means the editor is unable to respond or just unwilling to engage in discussion. Do other editors have an opinion on the edit? Road Wizard (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't this the year the Times wasn't published due to a longrunning strike? Timrollpickering (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply. That certainly clears things up. Hopefully the IP editor will pay attention to this talk page. Road Wizard (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Times 

message: I've found a website detailing Callaghan's connections to various businesses, is it appropriate to add?
http://www.rebeccatelevision.com/categories/archives_01
Jonpatterns (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection to businesses 

message: "a precursor to the monetarist economic policies that the next government, a Conservative one led by Margaret Thatcher, would pursue in order to ease the crises."[15]
15 refers to a COMbbc source whch is hardly impartial. All Thatcher did was plunder the poor even more intensively than Callaghan, exploiting his precedent. The "crises" never went away, they were institutionalised.Keith-264 (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercialbbc as a reliable source? 

message: I don't doubt it, but can anyone find a citation for the claim that Callaghan's ashes were scattered around the Peter Pan statue outside Great Ormond Street? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Ormond Street 

message: There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages. 
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. 
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion|Request for Comments]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on James Callaghan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120129085931/http://www.number10.gov.uk/history-and-tour/james-callaghan-2/ to http://www.number10.gov.uk/history-and-tour/james-callaghan-2/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Would an interview with transcript with James Callaghan from 1987 be useful here as an external link? Focus of conversation is nuclear weapons policy. http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/V_22AA44B566844D888F89E1BA4A3F3925 (I have a conflict of interest; otherwise I would add it myself.) Mccallucc (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  external link? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on James Callaghan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090709040934/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRcallaghanJ.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRcallaghanJ.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924034742/http://www.infobritain.co.uk/James_Callaghan.htm to http://www.infobritain.co.uk/James_Callaghan.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why do we need this in the succession boxes? Are 20 succession boxes too few? I would be very surprised to learn that a biographer of Callaghan says who preceded and who followed Callaghan as the "oldest living prime minister". Surtsicna (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete - Too trivial for a succession box. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Keep - record is independently verifiable. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Being verifiable does not necessitate inclusion. Please explain why something so minute needs to be presented as the article's 22nd succession box. Surtsicna (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: See List of oldest living prime ministers of the United Kingdom. It's not "minute", we have a standalone list of the holders of this record and this should warrant inclusion among the succession boxes.  ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We have all sorts of trivia, and that one is not even a standalone article but merely a section. Why not have a box for "Longest-lived prime minister"? Or the "Longest-married prime minister"? Or the "Shortest-widowed prime minister"? Or the "Tallest prime minister"? We have all those records for Callaghan on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

text: It's just too trivial. These succession boxes should be limited to government offices & party posts. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not mere trivia. Unlike 's false equivalences, we actually have a list of the oldest-living British prime ministers and it's useful and helpful to maintain a sequence of this notable record. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we have that completely unsourced list, and we can make unsourced lists for all the similarly trivial records that Wikipedia says Callaghan holds. What does that prove? We have List of British monarchs by longevity as a standalone article but do we have an "Oldest British monarch" box at Elizabeth II? Of course not because it would be utter tosh. Surtsicna (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It proves that this record is nowhere near as random as the others. It's a sequential component of a comprehensive list of predecessors and successors. Readers may very well have reached this article by clicking List of oldest living prime ministers of the United Kingdom, just as they may have for any other succession Callaghan is listed as a part of. Your reference to List of British monarchs by longevity is utterly disingenuous, given that there is almost always only one monarch living at one time, rendering any possible sequence moot. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we may need an RFC covering this issue for all the British prime minister bios. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd expand it to cover all officeholders around the world, lest we actually have to one day explain on a talk page why it is ludicrous to have an "Oldest Canadian monarch" succession box. Surtsicna (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Would Village Pump be the best location? I've considered WP:POLITICS, but my RFC there for 'party nominees', isn't getting much attention. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose so, since it would cover non-political officeholders too. Surtsicna (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Shall we begin to include Tallest-living British prime minister, Fattest-living British prime minister, etc ? GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Only once someone gets around ordering the prime ministers on Wikipedia by height, it would seem. Surtsicna (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This box is symptomatic of the relentless copying of US Presidential trivia across all office holders. No Swan So Fine (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest living prime minister 

message: I mentioned this dispute at WP:POLITICS. FWIW, the practice has been to capitalise in the bios of British prime ministers. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:JOBTITLES says that capitals should only be used to denote a politician's title, with lowercase used if the sentence is modified to denote their office. So it would be correct to use capitals in , but  would need to use lowercase. This means the capitals used in the lead are misused, as "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" is modified by "the" to denote the office not the title. Removing "the" would solve this problem, as  would changing "Prime Minister" to lowercase. The reverse is happening with "leader of the Labour Party", where you could argue that it should use capitals, as it is unmodified and forms a new clause. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 23:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We have ourselves a huge mess, then, across all the British prime ministers bios. I'm in favour of de-capitalising, if it's applied to all of them Walpole to Johnson. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalising in British PM bios 

message: The infobox is supposed to be a summary of the most important information about the subject. Why should the infobox here contain names that are never mentioned in the text? Surtsicna (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead is the summary of the article. The infobox is a standard pro forma for carrying information and not every detail in every infobox is also included in the text of that article as standard. It is standard to include the predecessors and successors for each office help or to show where there was none. Random inclusions and exclusions are the worst of all well. As there is no consensus here to remove them the box has been restored to standard. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: An infobox is defined as a panel "that summarizes key features of the page's subject". The less information there is an infobox, the more useful it is, and any "any unnecessary content" should be excluded "whenever possible" (WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). The names John Parker and Bernard Braine are not "key features" of the subject of this page, as evidenced by the fact that these men are never brought up in the text. Moreover, Father of the House is a title, not an office, so it is misleading (if not outright incorrect) for the infobox to speak of Callaghan having been "in office" from 1983 to 1987 as Father of the House. And as far as I can tell, it is not standard to include parameters effectively stating "none"; we do not, for example, have "Spouse = None" or "Children = Childless" at Edward Heath. Surtsicna (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Hi all -  thinks it's a clever idea that the person known for holding all four of the Great Offices of State (and a fact mentioned in the first paragraph of the lede) should have all but one of those offices hidden away behind a reduced infobox. This seems absolutely stupid to me. Any complaints or disagreement for bringing these into the prominence they clearly warrant? Vaze50 (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What on Earth are you complaining about? They are all there: Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary and Prime Minister. I also don't think that you should name people and bring them up in a negative context just to call their opinion "absolutely stupid". Please don't do that. Cheers! Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Great Offices of State

message: Under "Early Life and Career" we have Callaghan working as a tax clerk in Maidstone at the age of 17, that is, in 1929. Immediately after this it says "[w]hile working as a tax inspector, Callaghan joined the Maidstone branch of the Labour Party". The next dated event is in 1932 when "he passed a Civil Service exam which enabled him to become a senior tax inspector": this would be at the age of 20. By 1936 he had left the civil service and become a full-time union official.
It may seem that anyone working for the Inland Revenue's tax offices could be described as a tax inspector, but in the 1930s there were regular grades in the IR, and "tax officer" - apparently Callaghan's grade on starting was a purely clerical job - and to be appointed formally as a tax inspector, with the ability to make assessments, required several years of training. I am guessing that the exam he passed in 1932 saw him promoted to "Tax Officer (Higher Grade)". In the interwar years, a Senior Inspector was a lofty grade, typically the head of one of the larger tax offices.
This is an excerpt from Hansard 6 June 1930 (Mr W. J Brown MP), describing the system. A tax inspector was "administrative staff" and a tax officer "clerical class":
At the top there is a class called the administrative class, charged with the general responsibility of administrating the Civil Service. Below that class there is an executive class concerned with the direction of blocks of business. Below that there is the clerical class, which discharges a broad range of clerical functions throughout the Service. Below that there are a class of writing assistants, women engaged upon less important clerical operations, and typing and shorthand typing classes also consisting of women. Finally, at the bottom of the structure, there are some 6,000 temporary Civil servants, men and women, who are liable to dismissal at any time. To each of the main established classes, administrative, executive, clerical and writing assistant, there is direct recruitment of candidates coming straight from the schools. At the same time, there is in each of these classes an acute block of promotion. Executive officers cannot get promoted to the administrative class, clerical officers to the executive class, writing assistants and P-men to the clerical class, and so on, or cannot be promoted in anything like the numbers that would be possible but for the fact of this direct entry of boys and girls from school to each of the main established classes.
Is there any evidence that Callaghan actually was a tax inspector? Thomas Peardew (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is available on Google Books.  It does not say "senior tax inspector", it says "senior tax officer".  I have edited the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. "Tax officer" and "senior tax officer" will do very well. By the 1960s, when I worked for the Inland Revenue these were know as "TO" and "TO(HG)". In terms of that Hansard extract, Callaghan would have been promoted from a clerical grade to an executive grade. Thomas Peardew (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inspector of Taxes