Talk:Harold Wilson

Article sections on premiership must be split to new articles

The sections that discuss his policies during his tenure as prime minister must be included in a new article that concerns entirely about his period in office. This must be the case for most Prime Ministers who had a term length of about 5 years or longer. The first article that discusses the policies and events of a prime minister in a articles are Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and the current prime minister to name a few. In the US politics portal in Wikipedia, discusses the beforehand mention “policies and events” of a president in a separate article. Why can’t we do the same? Altonydean (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not entirely opposed to this, however he was PM twice, would there be two articles for 1964-70 and 1974-76? G-13114 (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@G-13114 We can include both his terms as prime minister in the same article. There is no need to write two separate articles for each of them. Write them in two separate headings titled “first term” and “second term” to talk about his premierships instead of two articles. Altonydean (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I notice that the article Premiership of Harold Wilson has been (re) created. Does this make sense to have? Aszx5000 (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

It was very long, and splitting it is in line with other lengthy PM articles, e.g. Premiership of Margaret Thatcher or Premiership of Tony Blair. I've made a stab at cutting down the content on the main page. G-13114 (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Great, that makes sense. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Lead image

• 
  1.)
• 
  2.)
• 
  3.)
• 
  4.)
• 
  5.)
• 
  1 rotated.)

I've noticed that there is fairly regular edits changing the existing lead image (1) to either (2) or sometimes (3) so I thought it was worth discussing on the talk page. I believe that of the three, (1) is the best (which I added originally BTW) because it is photographically the best composed of the three, it is the highest resolution of the three, it was taken during Wilson's time as PM, and captures well, Wilson's public image as a pipe smoking everyman. Number (2) on the other hand is photographically poor, being badly lit, fairly low resolution, and was taken in 1962, before he became PM, and it is already used in the relevant section on his time as opposition leader. Number (3) is in colour at least but it is not well composed as he is looking away from the camera. Anyway that is my case for using (1) I thought it would be best to discuss it than having frequent edit conflicts about it. G-13114 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Number 2 is the best. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 00:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• In terms of being a good image for the lead, I think (1) is best. This is partly because of image quality in terms of being well-lit, good focus, and not too pixelated, and partly because I agree that it shows him as he was perceived to be. Image (3) is worst; pixelation is not good, and it looks odd - both of these problems are because it was cropped from a digital image, that was cropped from another digital image.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  i propose Nkbok (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  i don't think the image linked it's called Nkbok (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  In Nkbok's 22 July edit to the article, he/she added File:Harold Wilson 1 Allan Warren.jpg, which was taken in 1986. I have added that to the gallery above as (4). I assume that (4) is what Nkbok is proposing. (1) was taken in 1975, (2) in 1962, (3) in 1966, and (4) in 1986.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  thanks I think it's the highest quality picture with the most personality, although it being from his time as a lord probably isn't desirable Nkbok (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  that being said Edward Heath has a very similar lead portrait taken by Allan Warren in 1987 Nkbok (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I have added Option 5, which I propose to replace the current infobox image. I agree with the general consensus above that Option 3 would look odd and unfitting in the infobox, and I dislike Options 2 and 4 because they are outside Wilson’s tenure as prime minister. At the same time, I believe that Option 1 is also inferior because although it is of good resolution, it is relatively fuzzy and is a narrow crop that leaves Wilson looking sideways over the shoulder of an invisible US president. While Option 5 does not show Wilson’s “pipe smoking everyman” persona, I think that consideration should come last and that Option 5’s style and quality makes it best for the infobox image. John Adams 362 (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@JamesMacKerell and John Adams 362: I prefer (1) to (1 rotated). (1) is rather nice; and yes it has the pipe, and it was taken in 1975 when Wilson was PM. In my opinion the objections that John Adams 362 has expressed apply strongly to (1 rotated) and less strongly [if at all] to (1). JamesMacKerell, when you created (1 rotated) did you edit File:President Gerald Ford and British Prime Minister Harold Wilson.jpg or File:President Gerald Ford and British Prime Minister Harold Wilson (crop).jpg? (5) is preferable to (1 rotated).-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I edited File:President Gerald Ford and British Prime Minister Harold Wilson.jpg. I rotated the image because I thought that the subject's image being 'tilted', so to speak, was unsuitable. I agree that Options 2,3, and 4 should be taken out of consideration, though I don't agree that Wilson looks weird in Option 1, in either of its variants. In any case, while a colour photograph is preferable, all colour pictures of Wilson are lacking. JamesMacKerell (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

My objections were intended to apply to both Options 1 and 1-rotated; my main objection remains that both Options 1 and 1-rotated appear fuzzier than Option 5, which I believe to be of better quality overall. I also don’t like that Options 1 and 1-rotated were very visibly cropped, with most parts of the image excluding Wilson’s head and pipe cut off but with a head still evident in the background, and with Wilson looking off to the side (though the sideways look isn’t really terrible, especially for the unrotated version). There is a shoulder visible to the left in Option 5, but it is not as prominent and the image’s dimensions resemble a more natural portrait style with Wilson looking forward and more of his body and background being included. I do acknowledge that Option 5 is missing Wilson’s trademark pipe, but I nevertheless think that its quality and style would make it a better infobox image than either Option 1 or 1-rotated. John Adams 362 (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

For clarification, does anyone oppose the use of Option 5 as the infobox image or prefer the use of Options 1 or 1-rotated? No one has explicitly stated so, and if there are no actual objections I will just go ahead and implement the proposed change. John Adams 362 (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

5 is a terrible option, as he is pulling a strange face. Personally I think 1 is more natural than 1 rotated. G-13114 (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Stating that Wilson is “pulling a strange face” in Option 5 is very subjective; I personally do not think there is anything “strange” about his expression, no more strange than in other portraits of Wilson, and certainly not to the level than Option 5 becomes absolutely “terrible”. What isn’t subjective, however, is the overall quality of the images, in which I believe Option 5 is superior. At least in my opinion image quality should be the most important factor in determining the infobox image, followed by other considerations such as layout or facial expressions. John Adams 362 (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

(1) is my preferred option.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I know I'm a little late on this, but I do feel like voicing my thoughts on this regardless of the time differences. Option 5 seems to be the best out of these as it has a relatively high quality and a good, simple representation (the only downsides are the lack of his 'signature' pipe, another person visible to the side, and it has him in slightly odd expression). While Options 2 and 4 are inferior for being the lead image due to being outside Wilson's premierships, they would be great photos for body images since they are also good representations of him. Options 1 and 3 from this point of view also seem inferior because they are both cropped versions of images of him with other US Presidents (here and here, as previously referenced above), so using their original photos in the body would be more ideal than using extracted versions of them as the lead image. KagedCroc1 ⭐️ 09:38, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Number 5 hardly looks like him at all. 1 or 3 look most "typical" to me. He's not looking at the camera in either, but I don't see that as a problem. DuncanHill (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Knighthood

I believe Harold Wilson was also a Sir, Sir Harold Wilson. ~2026-28467-08 (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The article says that he got the KCG in 1976 - that made him Sir Harold Wilson.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

He wouldn’t be styled “Sir Harold Wilson” after receiving the life peerage in 1983, though, but rather as “The Lord Wilson of Rievaulx,” and as such his “Sir” style lasted only from 1976 to 1983. John Adams 362 (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

RfC on lead image

Which of the following photographs should serve as the lead image for Harold Wilson? John Adams 362 (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

• 
  A
  (Current)
• 
  B
• 
  C
  (Prior to 2024)
• 
  D
• 
  E
• 
  A2
  (Rotated)
• 
  B2
  (Rotated)

Pinging previous participants @G-13114, @Robertus Pius, @Toddy1, @Nkbok, @KagedCroc1, @DuncanHill, and @JamesMacKerell;
The discussion about the lead image above has apparently been going on for over one and a half years but there have been very different perspectives on the images listed with little consensus, with each of the letter options above receiving support from at least one editor. As such, I think an RfC would be the best way to bring a final resolution to this issue or at least wrap it up without having it drag on as it did for Edward Heath (where the RfC ended in no consensus three years after the discussion first started). As the discussion stands, Option A (the current status quo) has received most support, followed by Option B, with Options C through E receiving minimal support (though Option C was the lead image prior to the creation of Option A in 2024). It has also been proposed using a rotated version of Option A, and a rotated version of Option B was also created so I put it up as well. John Adams 362 (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I messed up on the pinging, so re-pinging @Robertus Pius, @Toddy1, @Nkbok, @KagedCroc1, and @JamesMacKerell. John Adams 362 (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

• I support Option B for the reasons I listed above: It shows him during his premiership (unlike Options C and D), and although not in color I think it surpasses all other images (except maybe D) in quality and style. Options C and D are from different and less relevant periods of his life, and Option E is very poor quality despite being in color. While Option B does not reflect Wilson’s trademark pipe-smoking persona, it is still a clear and visible depiction of Wilson that in my opinion is simply superior to Option A, which is relatively fuzzy, has other people’s heads visible, and, as I think, is overly zoomed in on Wilson’s face. I also do not think that arguments about Wilson’s facial expressions have much relevance because they are subjective depending on the viewer, and while some may think it appears "odd" others may disagree. John Adams 362 (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  And I also oppose the use of the rotated options, because I really see no problem with using the original ones and the rotated images could be misleading to readers. John Adams 362 (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

• (summoned by bot) Option A. Best picture. Andreas JN466 03:42, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Option A - (Brought here from RFC/A) - I agree with Andreas above, best pic.

  MaximusEditor (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

• (summoned by bot) Option B or Option D over current, with no strong preference towards either over the other; both are higher quality than A, which is pretty grainy due to it being a crop. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 04:28, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
• It is nice to have so many good options, even if all of them have a little flaw to keep them from being perfect. I don't have a strong preference, but either A or B would be best, with A being my pick in a tie-breaker. I do also want to note that A and E are both over-cropped currently, and A2 and B2 are both over-rotated (with A’s original not needing any rotation at all). See the following table for a hint at how I evaluated them, especially if it helps you:

Table comparing photos on important factors

Photo	Year	Composition and representation (visible face, direct and not unflattering)	Image quality (sharp and well-resolved)	Colour	Pipe
A	1975	Good	Adequate	No	Yes
B	1967	Distant gaze	Good	No	No
C	1962	Good	Good	No	No
D	1986	Awkward pose	Good	No	Yes
E	1966	Chin obscured by pipe and not square	Adequate	Yes	Yes

— HTGS (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Excellent table! It summarizes all previously made arguments perfectly! The only thing I would color differently is the year 1986, which I would make red because unlike Edward Heath who was still a backbench MP, Wilson was retired and no longer held political office, having left the premiership a decade ago. Also, you said that you thought that Option A was currently over-cropped, but it cannot be cropped less because of the people surrounding Wilson (and if you look closely, you can already see President Gerald Ford’s hair in the top right corner). John Adams 362 (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that removing all trace of other people in the photo is necessary. But yeah, three colours is probably too few, but (a) the colours are just my opinion, and (b) I want to avoid implying that these are definitive values, rather than just a guide. (That, and I’m not putting that much effort into this lol.) — HTGS (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

First, I was not arguing that all traces of other people must be removed from the lead image (or I wouldn’t have supported Option B), I was just mentioning that it would be impossible to have Option A cropped wider without including a portion of President Ford’s face, making A “over-cropped” and grainy beyond the possibility of a better version. Second, I was not arguing that you should make the table more complex but simply providing my own take on what I think is a remarkably accurate summary of previously made arguments (this was supposed to be a compliment, not a critique; I think the table can be quite helpful to other users). John Adams 362 (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• Option A for the reasons I gave in the section above this one. It captures his essence, it is high quality, and was taken during his tenure as PM. G-13114 (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
• A, followed by E, as being the most representative of the public man. B does not much look like him at all. DuncanHill (talk) 10:17, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
• Right off the bat (Wilson would sometime emit cricket-based sayings, usually Yorkshire-related), I'd go for an image showing him with his pipe. He was so often photographed with it that it became his Churchillian cigar. Of those proffered in the menu, I'd say A is the best one for his encyclopaedia page. -The Gnome (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

The rotated A, i.e. A2, is even better. -The Gnome (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

• As is my previous opinion, Option A, B and or their derivatives are the best image, as they are the highest-quality images. While I'd prefer that Mr. Wilson's photograph is not tilted, the original version of A is the best for me if I had to exclude the rotated images. JamesMacKerell (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
• Original shot of Option B is the best of these images to me, for the reasons that have been listed above in here and essentially seconding @John Adams 362's points. It depicts him during his 1st premiership, (per MOS:LEADIMAGE; it would be preferable to use a fairly representable photo during a leader's leadership(s) as the lead image rather than a fairly representable image outside it as being Prime Minster was arguably Wilson's most notable career) and relatively clear (per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, unlike A and E that are both very grainy, and C being slightly blurry). The only downsides to Option B is his odd expression (e.g, mouth open in an awkward way), another person visible to the left side, and no pipe, but even then I don't think that these issues are that huge (though I suppose the other person that is seen on the left side is the most problematic part). If anything, if it was taken during a more notable period for Wilson, Option D would be a great image. It has higher quality, facing the camera in a normal expression, and even includes his arguably 'signature' pipe. Therefore that would be my 2nd choice.

However, I don't mind using the rest of the images to be used in the body. Both options C and D are outside his two premierships, but as they are good representations of Wilson, C would work well under the In Opposition (1951–1964) section as it was during the listed years (1962), and D would work well under Post premiership (1976–1995) as it was during his post premiership (1986; I know that both of these images are already used under the referenced sections, but I did want to add this as a note). Options A and E, as they are both cropped from photos of him with other US Presidents, they would likely (in my humble opinion at the very least, if it's worth anything) mislead the actual context of their uncropped photos. If there is a photo solely of the subject it is usually preferable to use it over the cropped version of the subject with other individuals. As both were taken during his 2 different premierships, I would (if we can) put the full photo of Option E under First premiership (1964–1970) and the full photo of Option A under Second premiership (1974–1976). Also, I disagree with using the rotated versions of both options A and B. There is nothing significantly wrong with either of the original shots. KagedCroc1 ⭐️ 12:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Valuable consideration; worth adding that many of these could have their uncrossed versions added to the body of the article, even if used cropped in the lead. — HTGS (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

• A is the one I like most. It was taken when Wilson was PM. For the purpose of an infobox photo, one with Wilson's characteristic pipe is to be preferred. For reasons previously discussed I don't think the rotated version is as good. I saw that both John Adams 362 and HTGS expressed the view that A is over-cropped/over-zoomed on his face (two different ways of saying the same thing), and maybe they are right. I think the image quality of A is fit-for-purpose. My second choice would be C, which was taken when he was leader of the opposition, two years before becoming PM. C is a nice image, but I prefer A because A has the pipe. C may also be over-cropped/zoomed-in, but that was the fault of the unknown photographer for Central Office of Information back in 1962.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
• A It's difficult to articulate why, but I find this one the most neutral and pleasing. Slava570 (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
• A. Give the man his pipe. Surtsicna (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2026 (UTC)