text:
Talk:Harold Wilson

Please explain his titles (here)!
The piece on Wilson and his titles has no doubt been worked on by someone who understands the arcane operation of UK forms of address far better than I do. Still, I'd like to know why -- according to this account -- it only became appropriate to address him with PC (Privy Council) after his name at the time he received his peerage. UK politicians are typically "sworn of the Privy Council" at the time they enter the Cabinet. Help, please, Miss Manners! Nandt1 (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In very quick terms, barons, viscounts and earls are automatically Right Honourable, so if they are also members of the Privy Council they are giving a suffix of PC to distinguish them from barons, viscounts and earls who are not members of the Privy Council. And incidentally, it is not strictly true about being sworn when they enter cabinet, there are a number of exceptions Whit  stable  02:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Partial reversion on introductory treatment of Wilson's approach to socialism
Another user recently made changes to the introductory section on Wilson's brand of socialism. I accept that some of these changes were a marked improvement, as they removed an earlier speculative section ("suggesting" Wilson's attitude to traditional left wing approaches). This change is to be applauded. However, I propose that the additional changes -- which almost entirely focused attention on the "social reform" area of the Wilson governments' record, at the expense of his goals on opportunity, technology and growth -- create a confusion and imbalance between what Wilson himself set out to do and what a certain part of his administration (the Home Office largely under Jenkins) undertook. If one reads Wilson's own speeches, e.g., from the 1964 campaign, his own area of focus seems clear. I recognize that the same reader has asked for citation(s) to back up the article's claim that Wilson personally had little interest in the Jenkins agenda. While I think this is well known, I accept the challenge, and will just need a little more time to find suitable quotes to support this point. Nandt1 (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The citation requested has now been supplied. Nandt1 (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Giving a little more thought to how to deal with the issues raised, I am now proposing a new reference to the social legislation in the introduction, but separated from the discussion on Wilson's approach to socialism. The larger significance of the "socialism" discussion, that we should try not to lose here, is that attitudes to public ownership have represented a central fissure within the Labour Party almost ever since the Attlee government lost office. Thus Gaitskell tried but failed to change Clause Four of the constitution, opposed by Bevan; much later Foot re-emphasized the left's traditional values; more recently, Blair actually changed the Party's constitution. Where does Wilson fit into this story? This article argues that he basically fudged the issue -- neither changing the letter of the constitution, nor doing very much to put it into practise. Nandt1 (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

 * In this context is the response of Attlee, who was presented with a shopping list of demands by Harold Laski (Labour Party Chairman), when Labour had won the 1945 election - supposedly he said words to the effect of "a period of silence from you would be appreciated" (Attlee was one of the politicians noted for taciturnity). Many of the Labour Party "socialists" felt that, notwithstanding the policy of public ownership and the setting up of the NHS, the Attlee government did not do as much as it could have done to advance the "socialist" agenda. Guy (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but why the scare quotes around the word socialism?? I understand that scare quotes denote so-called? This brings up the confusing idea that wikipedia editors consider socialism "so called" without any explanation as to why. Besides this is a colloquial usage and strikes me, at least, as excessively informal for an encyclopedia, which is supposed to make things as clear as possible for the ordinary reader. Does wikipedia have a policy on this? Wouldn't it be better to write, as in comments above, socialism (i.e., public ownership), or controversies over public ownership and its extent, which I gather is what is really meant. Mballen (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I took a stab at re-writing the paragraph in question, replacing "traditional" with "controversial" -- though the idea that it was traditional is still in there, I hope, since immediately afterward it says that it was in the platform. I wanted to suggest that it was contentious, if longstanding. Am not trying to add new content, just hopefully bringing the meaning that is already there. Also added internal reference to Social Democrat (didn't realize there was a distinction between Social Democrat and Democratic Socialist. Live and learn.) Mballen (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Section on "Reputation": Cuts and Weasel Word Label
The section on Wilson's reputation -- which has survived for some time -- attempts to provide a balanced account of the competing views, and to place his administration into the historical context of the intellectual climate of its time. Another user has now made heavy cuts to the section, accusing it of "polemic" and "weasel words" but without supplying any specifics in this discussion section. I have attempted to revert the text selectively, making changes where it seemed that the earlier language might touch a nerve. I would, at this stage, make a request for a collegial approach which seeks to preserve discussion that embodies serious intellectual content, while being ready to collaborate and compromise over any specific language that might be thought by some to fall short of balance. Nandt1 (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of reputation, the man had a condition that kills mostly children named after him due to his perceived indifference. That seems worth mentioning. There are a couple of print sources, here's one. https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=KdHciuXcVscC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=harold+wilson+syndrome&source=bl&ots=CRMpNgpaoT&sig=1jr1cMy6p1gbDkwYHt2Vybb-5R0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixrt_nqYPRAhWnC8AKHbDQCF4Q6AEILTAD#v=onepage&q=harold%20wilson%20syndrome&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.56.65 (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

 * What ON EARTH is the above crap supposed to be about?
 * Wilson's disease is named after the physician who first described it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson%27s_disease#History CatNip48 (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Near parallel dates with Edward Heath

 * Wilson b.11 March 1916-d.24 May 1995
 * Heath b.9 July 1916-d.17 July 2005  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.139 (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?
From the lead paragraph:

 * He emerged as Prime Minister after more general elections than any other 20th century premier.

I have no idea what that means. Is it a mistake, or am I missing something? Loganberry (Talk) 15:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

 * It's trying to say that he "won" four general elections whilst acknowledging that for one of them it's a little tricky to allocate a winner and follow his claim to have "become Prime Minister four times, the only person since Gladstone", on the dubious basis of counting a re-election as a becoming separately (and ignoring Baldwin who fits on this logic). Timrollpickering (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Vietnam
Mr Wilsons' position on Vietnam was made in his statement that; 'Britain would continue to suppot the United States in principle so long as we remain convinced, and we are convinced, that the Americans are serious in their negotiations for peace'.Johnwrd (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Basics
This article continues to have extensive unsourced material, including direct quotations and statements of opinion, more than 18 months after someone flagged it. Clearly, the author is not going to fix it, so the material should be removed. Wikipedia's flagging is an empty threat.76.23.157.102 (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wilson's first budget
Good or bad? Please include details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.83.27 (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't know any! You sound like your are researching this project, after you have, could you add what you have found to the article? (make sure they are referenced in the article too, that is a big help) Thanks! ^_^  Captain n00dle  T/C 14:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Place naming policy
There is a very clear policy on UK place names at WP:UKPLACE It states: I was made aware of this towards the end of a debate on one page and it seemed to me to settle the issue so I tidied up the modern UK Prime Ministers to conform with it. I'm nor really surprised that Irvine22 went on a revert spree, he has a pattern of disruptive editing (see here and a recording of picking up a minor theme and running it over many pages (for example labeling any Irishperson born in England as English, even a Provisional IRA commander). More recently he has move this campaign to the Welsh from the Irish including edit warring on  my own article  on Wikipedia.  His pattern of editing is to push to the limits of tolerance with the community, then back off with either an enforced or a voluntary withdrawal from editing for a period before he returns to start all over again.  I will also post a notice at the talk page of WP:UKPLACE but pending a change of policy agreed by the community at that location Irvine22's recent edits should be reverted. -- Snowded TALK  07:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In England, disambiguated place names should go under placename, ceremonial county. Where this is inappropriate placename, Town/City
 * In Wales, disambiguated place names should go under placename, principal area. Thus Queensferry, Flintshire, not Queensferry, Wales
 * Where possible, articles on places in Scotland should go under placename. Thus Glasgow, not Glasgow, Scotland. Where the settlement is significant and disambiguation is needed, articles should generally go under placename, Scotland. Thus Perth, Scotland, not Perth, Perth and Kinross.

Loss of 1955 Finance Bill
I've been reviewing Hansard for 1955, and I don't actually see the loss of the 1955 finance bill. What seemed to happen is that Wilson successfully brought to a close one late-night sitting of the Committee of the Whole House in a ways that suspended any further progress on the bill; such suspension was ended two days later by a motion of Parliament. The 1955 Finance Bill seems to have successfully completed Third Reading in late December 1955.Etrigan (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of comment here and uncited nature of the original statement, I'm about to amend the article to clarify. Etrigan (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality issue -- recently added material on domestic achievements of 1964-70 government
A substantial amount of new material has recently been added to this article. It was originally inserted into the section on social issues, but it dealt with a wide range of policy areas going well beyond what is normally defined as social issues (e.g., transportation, etc.). I have therefore moved this new material into a newly created section on "domestic policy accomplishments." My larger concern is that this section has been drafted in what seems to me not to be a "neutral" way, as required by Wikipedia policy, but more as an advocacy piece for the Wilson administration. Do others see the issue that I see here? Nandt1 (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Further exacerbation of POV issue with this article
The POV section highlighted above has recently been further expanded. We have here one specific user "on a mission" to extoll the achievements of the first Wilson administrations (the same user has a record of inserting similarly POV material into a number of other Wikipedia articles on left-of-center governments in various countries). My own view is that the section on "Domestic Policy Achievements" has by now developed into a lengthy personal essay that bears no resemblance to Wikipedia's institutional standards of neutral point of view, and that clashes with the attempted neutrality of other users in the rest of the article. There is a case to be made for deleting all of this material. Is anyone else reading this article nowadays? Nandt1 (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

[N.B., The following exchange was moved from the section below to this section, to which it refers.] Nandt1 (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Which material in the section strikes you as POV? I'm not seeing anything too glaring, though the section in question seems unduly long and could probably be edited down. Salmanazar (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The section I find unbalanced is (as explained in the section above) not in fact the section on Conspiracy Theories, but the section on Domestic Policy Accomplishments, which seems to me written more in the manner of a Labour Party manifesto than of an encyclopedia. It is all exuberantly boosterish, with no attempt at balance in the way of reflecting any possible criticism of the government's record.  Give it a read and ask yourself if you could imagine Britannica printing this. Nandt1 (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Domestic Policy Accomplishments" is the section I was referring to in my reply above. It seems a more or less factual list on the whole. Though I agree a section on criticism of the government would be a desirable counterbalance. Salmanazar (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. I guess we see it differently. Let's see if others have views. Nandt1 (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC) To avoid confusion, I am moving this text to the previous section where it seems to me to belong: hope this is acceptable. Nandt1 (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC) --

Excision of section on Conspiracy theories
The original section of this article summarising discussion on conspiracy theories was recently removed in toto (possibly to make way for the new material discussed above) and pasted into the more detailed article on Harold Wilson conspiracy theories. I have raised on the discussion page for the conspiracy theories page the problem raised for that article by the fact that the material was just pasted in, without integrating it into the existing article (hence all sorts of repetition).

Here I want to ask other users for their views on whether the loss to the present article is such that consideration should be given to reverting the cut? Nandt1 (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: The new and inexperienced user who deleted this section has responded to my message to his/her discussion page: "I apologise for deleting the information on Harold Wilson conspiracy theories: I only intended to shorten the section on Harold Wilson, but it was not my intention to cause any mess." I have therefore reverted this cut, leaving the section as it was prior to the changes.Nandt1 (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Bugging
During a TV interview Denis Healey, who knew Harold wilson well, stated that towards the end of his last term in office Wilson was so paranoid that he was dismantling the light fittings beleieving that they contained bugs.

After her term as head of MI5, Mrs Stella Rimmington gave a televised TV speech in which she denied that any such plot had ever existed.

Does anybody know if Altzheimers Disease causes increasing paranoia? AT Kunene (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Wilson and Vietnam
I was serving with the British Armed Forces and sailing for Singapore when the ship was swept by rumours that the the then PM, Harold Wilson was under pressure from President Kennedy to divert the ship to give support in Vietnam.

Just how much differennce this would have made is uncertain but the Australians started landing in Vietnam at about the same time.

Does anybody have any further information?AT Kunene (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC) I doubt if Britain could have given much significant assistance to the United States in Vietnam anyway, as until at least the end of 1966 two thirds of the RN and much of the RAF and British Army and RM were committed to containing Indonesia, in the confontation struggle to protect Malaysian integrity, and contain Indonesian ambitions and its communist factions.The confrontation was in many respects a hot war, with British and Australian marines crossing the Indonesian border to hit at infiltration units and operating probably close to the doctrine and targeting of Wingate and US special forces. The use of the NZ Army/SAS was more restricted, officially from crossing the border on specific orders and monitoring by NZ CDS Rear Admiral Phipps. The confrontation and Indonesian threat was in the eyes of JFK., RFK and MacMillan, greater than that of North Vietnam and had a sig  risk of nuclear escalation. Britain obviously had other priortity commitments to NATO and West Germany. The more sophisticated UK forces were not well suited to assist the Americans and Australians in Vietnam as the RN used significantly different ammunition and missiles which was also partly true of the RAF which aircraft and the RNs fighters used their own medium range red top missiles. Britain no longer had the gun cruisers suitable for the main naval task of GFS off Vietnam as Belfast was too old and the Tiger class guns were not suited for the sustained fire multiple target approach of hitting saying 18 targets in ten minutes with 400-800 rounds of the USS Newport News. The Tigers guns are for high fire rates in 10-30 seconds against soviet anti ship missiles and always jammed or needed maintance if a full rpm.

Wilson and Vietnam (correction)
In my haste I accidentally deleted a couple of lines. This should now read.

At the Nassau conference the then Prime Minister Harold Macmillan was offered Polaris instead of Skybolt by Kennedy. There was also some newspaper speculation that part of the agreement was that the UK would play some part in the then developing Vietnam conflict. Nothing seems to have come of this though.

I was later serving with the British Armed Forces and sailing for Singapore when the ship was swept by rumours that the then PM, Harold Wilson was under pressure from "The President" to divert the ship to give support in Vietnam. This must have been Johnson.

Just how much difference this would have made is uncertain but the Australians started landing in Vietnam at about the same time.

Does anybody have any further information?AT Kunene (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Have a read of this article. And also this Google Books link. Salmanazar (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wilson and Johnson
Thanks Salmanazar. Forty years later it seems that there was some truth to the ship board rumour. I now wonder who it was leaked the information on board in the first place.AT Kunene (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Elections
Wilson won three elections (1964, 1966 and October 1974). The February 1974 election resulted in a hung parliament. (92.10.142.53 (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC))

The unavoidable fact is that he emerged as PM after four of the five elections he contested, including Feb 1974. Many people would count this as winning. But I have rephrased the sentence in question to make the point more precisely. Nandt1 (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

 * If Heath's talks with the Liberals hadn't broken down then he would have remained Prime Minister and Wilson would have resigned. (92.10.137.57 (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC))
 * If. Nandt1 (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

We hear over and over again that no party won the 2010 General Election. Wilson did not win the Fenruary 1974 election by any means. (92.7.28.205 (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC))

 * We hear different things about 2010 depending on who is speaking and which axe they have to grind. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If anything, Heath won the February 1974 election but not with the necessary majority. (92.7.26.128 (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC))

FRS or FRSS?
An innocent question, to which I do not claim to know the answer. We currently list Wilson as FRS (Fellow of the Royal Society). Is this correct? Or should it be FRSS (Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society)? He was certainly active in the Royal Statistical Society (President at one stage, I believe I recall). The Royal Society is primarily composed of scientists; was he definitely a Fellow there as well? Nandt1 (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wilson was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society on 12 June 1968. Salmanazar (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, that is progress. Thank you.

Now, beyond that question, he is at this stage listed in the Box (but not the text) as also FSS. Which I assume is Fellow of the Statistical Society. Except that it is, I believe, the Royal Statistical Society? So two issues:(a) Is it FRSS rather than FSS? (b) once we've sorted the title out, the Box and the text should be made compatible. Nandt1 (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Oddly enough, FSS rather than FRSS is correct, despite the Society's name (see Royal Statistical Society) Salmanazar (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding my recent changes
Recently, I added a lot more information on various initiatives carried out by Harold Wilson's government. I hope that people find it interesting, and perhaps useful for research purposes. Also, Nandt1, I was just wondering where I repeated myself? By the way, I hope that you liked the additions I made, and other people too. Zictor23 23 July 2011

Zictor23. Since you specifically asked me by name for my views, I will share them candidly. Obviously you have worked hard, and in some places genuine gaps have been filled. This said, as you and I have discussed before, my own view is that your contributions on Wilson (and, in parallel, on other articles related to left-wing governments around the world) take a one-sided position, and read more like a "brief" for the Labour government in question than the balanced NPOV approach that Wikipedia seeks to achieve: you and I have been here before and I do not expect to persuade you on this point or to change your self-proclaimed mission of "add[ing] information regarding reforms by Harold Wilson's governments so that people could see what was achieved by the Labour Party in office....".

Beyond this, I would have to say that the degree of detail you have recently been adding on the minutiae of legislation, changes in benefit levels, etc., seems to me to go beyond what is normal in articles of this kind. If you would like to look at other Wikipedia articles on major political figures (not including those you have edited), I believe you will see that they do not seek to compile a list of every single piece of legislation passed and the like. There is a very real risk of missing the forest for the trees. I have recently begun to do a little consolidation on this article, though less than I believe it really needs. The changes I have made so far speak for themselves, but as an example, we had two separate discussions of the First Wilson government's record on distribution in two different sections of the article, both I believe largely or entirely your work (one was labeled as a discussion of the government's legacy, but it dealt almost exclusively with distributional issues, which hardly constitutes a balanced discussion of a government's overall legacy). Again, I don't expect you to agree, but you did ask me explicitly for my feedback so here it is..... Nandt1 (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The degree of detail is unusual (and refreshing), perhaps it could be moved to a "Premiership of Harold Wilson" page, whilst this article focuses on his biography? It would be a shame to delete this information from Wikipedia as much of it is useful.--Britannicus (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful feedback Nandt1, and for the kind compliment Brtannicus. I hope that people do find the information I've added useful. Perhaps it amy not be such a bad idea, Britannicus, if the reforms I've added (which I found in books written by authors who both liked and disliked Wilson: I've drawn from a wide range of sources from peope who have differing views on the record of the First Wilson Govt.) get transferred to a new page like you suggested.Zictor23 24 July 2011

Clearly any biographical article on Wilson needs to provide reasonably full coverage of the main issues raised by his premiership, so that any cutting of the present piece would need to be done very judiciously. Rather than trying for a single overall article on his premiership (or his government), it might make better sense, I would suggest, if Zictor23 and others like Britannicus want to preserve a level of detail on some selected aspects that seems to me inappropriate in the context of the present article, to consider preparing a more focused piece in the areas where Zictor23 has mainly focused his attention. How about a free-standing article on the social policies of the Wilson 1964-70 administration, which seem to be the main area of Zictor23's work? This could provide a lot of detail on changes in the design and level of social transfers, as well as the evidence on their impact on distribution. The main article on Harold Wilson could then incorporate a summary and cross-refer to the detailed piece. Nandt1 (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems unnecessarily convoluted. There is a precedent for having articles on premierships that deal with government policies that do not belong in biographical articles of the premiers concerned (Gladstone, Disraeli, Thatcher, Blair, etc.). It would surely make more sense in light of this to incorporate what you consider excessive detail into the article on Wilson's premiership (which for our purposes means the same as his government).--Britannicus (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for your suggestions Nandt1. I forgot to mention earlier that while there are a number of other social reforms carried out by Wilson that I would like to add at some point, I was also thinking of including a section to do with the First Wilson Government’s fall from power, together with various policy failures that arguably contributed to its 1970 election defeat. One of these (as you mentioned earlier) was the First Wilson Govt.’s failure to build 500,000 houses per year, but others that I will mention include:

(1.) Its failure to introduce a compulsory superannuation scheme, which would have provided British pensioners with an income closer to what they enjoyed during the best years of their working life, when their earnings were at their highest (I think that many, if not most, pensioners on the Continent already enjoy this level of provision). According to one historian, this would have been Wilson’s largest reform of social security, had it been carried out. (2.) Its failure to significantly increase development aid, which was actually cut severely as a result of austerity measures. (3.) Its failure to introduce a “minimum income guarantee” for widows and pensioners. (4.) Its failure to boost economic growth to 4% a year. (5.) Its failure to tie increases in national insurance benefits to increases in avearge earnings (this reform, however, was eventually introduced in 1975, but abolished in either 1979 or 1980: I can't remember which year). Zictor23 24 July 2011

Referring back to the comment by Britannicus, I can only say that I disagree. To be candid, what has brought us to our present dilemma is a single contributor, Zictor23, whose highly energetic writings primarily on a specific aspect of Wilson's administrations, namely social services and transfers, have in my humble opinion thrown off the balance of what, overall, used to be a reasonably well-balanced article. Zictor23 has not, by and large, entered into other aspects of the Wilson administrations at any great length -- e.g., foreign and defence policy, macro-economic policy, etc. If, as I would argue, what is now unbalanced is the excessively detailed coverage of social policies, the logical response is to spin off Zictor23's enthusiastically detailed work in these areas into a self-contained article, rather than to butcher the main article on Wilson, his career and his administrations. Nandt1 (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Zictor23. If one wanted to write an evidence-based discussion of why Wilson lost the 1970 election, it would seem to me one would want to start by examining in some depth the contemporary evidence from polls of what voters told pollsters was uppermost among their concerns, and why they voted the way they did. Without sticking to the evidence in this way, I am afraid that an election post mortem risks becoming little more than speculation mirroring the personal policy preferences each of us carries around with himself or herself. One place to start, I'd imagine, would be the volume (one in a long series of such election books) co-authored by David Butler for that year. Nandt1 (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Nandt1. I've read some of David Butler's books in the past: they are fairly interesting.Zictor23 24 July 2011

Regarding Wilson's resignation from Attlee's cabinet in 1951
I recently deleted the information about Wilson resigning from Attlee's cabinet over prescription medicine charges being introduced in 1951. Wilson actually resigned over charges being introduced for spectacles and dentures. Prescription charges for medicines were introduced by the Churchill Government in 1953.Zictor23 24 July 2011

It was actually 1952, sorry.Zictor23 24 July 2011

Well caught: my mistake. Nandt1 (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Wilson did not win the February 1974 election
He only ended up returning as Prime Minister in March 1974 after Heath's talks with the Liberals broke down. Saying Wilson won the February 1974 election would be like saying the Conservatives won the May 2010 election. The Conservatives won the election in England, it was only because of Labour votes in Scotland that Heath could not remain in office. (92.7.19.210 (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC))

Even if Heath had won only one seat he would have the right in the constitution to be the first to attempt to form a government, like Brown in 2010. The facts are these: Wilson's Labour won four more seats than Heath's Conservatives. Wilson became PM because of this. Number of votes are immaterial. If we were to judge elections on the share of the vote, then nobody has come close to 'winning' an election since Clement Attlee.--Paul011089 (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

 * The England/Scotland point is completely irrelevant for February 1974 as this was before the enactment of devolution; even in the devolution era general elections are for the parliament for the whole United Kingdom.
 * "Wilson didn't win in Feb 1974" seems to be a relatively modern phenomenon largely made by people trying to make the equal point that "Cameron didn't win in 2010". Prior to May 2010 it was much rarer to hear the point being made beyond specialist arguments.
 * Wilson would likely have become Prime Minister regardless even though Heath took time to throw in the towel.
 * @Paul011089 - Assuming you mean Attlee's 49.71% in 1945 (which is complicated by a number of uncontested seats), it was beaten by Anthony Eden with 49.74% in 1955 (despite the Conservatives not standing against five sitting Liberal MPs). But 1955 is probably the most overlooked of all the post-war elections. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering - Haha, I should have checked on that last one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul011089 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually Cameron was the first to try to form a government after the last election's hung parliament because he had far more MPs and far more votes than Brown. Under the system in the UK you have to have a parliamentary majority in order to win a General Election. (92.7.19.210 (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC))

 * That is not how the term win has been applied in the past. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The Prime Minster has the constitutional right to make the first attempt at forming a goverment. In the case of Heath in 1974 and Brown in 2010 this was unsuccesful, being both without a majority or even the party with the most seats. The number of votes is irrelevant.Paul011089 (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Cameron made the first attempt to form a government last year. (92.7.19.210 (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC))

 * The confusion is because there's a difference between how the monarch umpires this and negotiations between parties. In general it's hoped that the politicians will sort things out amongst themselves rather than relying on the monarch to dismiss or not dismiss PMs according to interpretations of the constitution, popular will and "right" outcomes. Most of the time this works out and so the monarch doesn't have to exercise the reserved powers. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Brown did not make an attempt to form a government after the 2010 election, as the Conservatives had far more MPs and had received well over a million more votes than Labour. (92.7.26.73 (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC))

Harold Wilson's time in Opposition and his memoirs
I am surprised that little mention is made of Harold Wilson's time spent in Opposition between 1970 and 1974, and in particular, his difference with the BBC over the production of the television documentary 'Yesterday's Men'.

There is -surprisingly - no mention either of Wilson's three volumes of memoirs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.66.62 (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Glaring errors / lack of citations
This is an awful article all round, and its neglect speaks volumes of the lack of historical interest in Great Britain. In particular however there are some real stinkers, such as

" Cecil King himself was an inveterate schemer but an inept actor on the political stage. "

With no citations

Can an editor please do whatever is appropriate, because some of this stuff is really quite misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.186.130 (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

==

Preceded by Edward Heath but also preceded Sir Alec Douglas-Home. Sir Alec Douglas-Home not listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.45.69 (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Wilson won three general elections
He did not win the February 1974 election which was a hung parliament. Heath actually got far more votes. In any case Labour only had more MPs because of Scotland. (92.7.26.73 (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC))

 * It's seats not votes that count in a parliamentary system and the point about Scotland is irrelevant - at nearly all elections the winner has extra strength in one part of the country or other. The hung parliament point is dealt with further up. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Scotland is not irrelevant - it's the only reason Cameron did not win the 2010 election outright, despite receiving well over a million more votes than Labour in 2005. Labour lost the February 1974 election, and only returned as a minority government because Heath's talks with the Liberals broke down. It would be inappropriate for this article to pretend Wilson won the February 1974 elction, when Cameron's article does not say he won the last election. (92.7.26.73 (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC))

 * The point is irrelevant. All elections are won with more support in one part of the country than in others. Cameron's article should probably say differently but gets sucked into partisan points. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that Wilson lost the February 1974 election, just as Cameron lost the 2010 election. (92.7.26.73 (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC))

 * "The fact is". Wikipedia works on sources not the opinion or analysis of editors which is irrelevant. Here's a source . The same view is in List of United Kingdom general elections. Please provide your sources for comparison. DeCausa (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the fact Heath remained Prime Minister after the election, just as Brown remained PM after the 2010 election? (92.7.26.73 (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC))
 * No, that's not how Wikipedia works. That's called original research and is irrelevant. Come back with a reliable source supporting your point. Otherwise, this thread has no point in Wikipedia terms. DeCausa (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If Wilson had won the February 1974 election then he would have become Prime Minister on the very next day. He didn't, so he didn't until March. (92.7.26.73 (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC))
 * Your own analysis is irrelevant in Wikipedia, as is any other editor's. See WP:OR. Please also indent your posts per WP:INDENT. DeCausa (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If this site is going to claim that Wilson won the February 1974 election, then David Cameron's article must say that he won the 2010 election. (92.7.26.73 (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC))

 * This site isn't going to claim anything. It reflects what reliable sources say, in accordance with its policies. Opinions and analysis of individual editors are of no interest. I have asked you three times to identify sources to support your view and you have ignored my requests. If you continue in this vein you are simply being disruptive. What the David Cameron article says is a matter for that article's talk page, not this one. I note also you have ignored normal indenting practice on Wikipedia talk pages, despite me linking to a guide to it, which adds to my view that you are being disruptive. DeCausa (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wilson wrote in his autobiography that Labour did not win the February 1974 election. (Gershwin19 (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC))

'I am a Bolshevik in a Tsarist Cabinet' ? How true Harolds comment to Crossman and Castle,, Chequers 64, apology accepting tight budget
My issue with this wiki article is there were significant differences in class, regional origin and social objectives in Wilson's cabinet. Wilson's defines his Cabinet and policy strategy as an Intelligent left Socialist. James Callaghan as Chancellor, Home Sec and PM was. derided rightly and wrongly as an idiot had a different philosophy, essentially that of working class loyalist to Britain and the US alliance like, Attlee's Foreign Sec and a fanatical believer in the RN, who he had clerked for in the war and who his father also served. Callaghan also a MP for the greatest of the naval ports,and his closest MP the young doctor MP, David Owen for the other. Like Robert Blake MP for Bridgewater or St John Fancourt, MP for Barnstable. Callaghan's view would have had significant support among the minor unreported members of Cabinet. Callaghan as Home Secretary also was a significant law and order, pro police enthusiast with the radically different views, of a believer rather than a populist and considerable power ( if often skillfully mislead and misguided by Denis Healey). Callaghans strong support for working class unionism in part reflected, a genuine belief in working class democracy not shared by the more centrist Oxford view of Wilson and Castle. Also I think their are radical differences in the attitudes to society and lifestyle between say Wilson and Healey with their working class Yorkshire roots and the more bohemian and 'middle class' Tony Crossland and Jenkins who if the son of a miner MP was really middle class. The beautiful American wives of Crosland and Crossman, if possibly not Benn also reflect a very different politics at least till 1977. The young doctor MP David Owen must be viewed as a significant ally of the more right wing Callaghan And Jenkins in the later period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.106.47 (talk) 02:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Won four elections?
Why does it say Wilson won four General Elections? The first election in 1974 was a hung parliament. (MichaelMeredith1967 (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC))

 * The largest number of seats and the premiership are winning by most standards. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wilson did not win the February 1974 election because he did not have a majority. He only became Prime Minister again after Heath's talks with the Liberals broke down. (MichaelMeredith1967 (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC))

Hmm... the sound of quacking? DeCausa (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I've never edited here before. I was just surprised to see the article saying Wilson won four General Elections. You are only considered to have won if you have a parliamentary majority. Wilson did not, which is why there had to be another election that year. (MichaelMeredith1967 (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC))

 * No? So User:MichaelMeredith1967 is not banned User:MarekAnders1974 or one of the other socks of banned User:HarveyCarter who keep banging on here about the exact same tedious point as the thread you've just opened? DeCausa (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked as a sock: IP range and article interest are the same. DrKay (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested edit
Wilson's near death experience should be included,. 81.152.198.14 (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

All right, something along the lines of 'In 1995, Wilson was close to drowning on the Isles of Scilly before he was saved by the Rugby family. The incident resulted in some embarrassment for Wilson, which was capitalised upon by the press.' 81.152.198.14 (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

 * This should be included. I'd add a little more, I'd avoid mentioning drowning since the threat to life was from hypothermia, and I'd get the date right, perhaps 'In the summer of 1973, Wilson, holidaying on the Isles of Scilly, tried to board a motor boat from a dinghy and stepped into the sea. He was unable to get into the boat and was left in the cold water, hanging on to the fenders of the motor boat. He was close to death before he was saved by passers by. The incident was taken up by the press and resulted in some embarrassment for Wilson; his press secretary, Joe Haines, tried to deflect some of the comment by blaming Wilson's dog for the problem.' Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Where do you think this should be added to? -- Orduin  Discuss 20:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've deactivated this edit request as ✅ since it appears Orduin and Richard Keatinge have implemented the change under the "Defeat and return to opposition" section. Best, Mz7 (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Very long; consider moving portions
This is one of the longest articles on a British prime minister and I think the major cause is excessive detail. We have subsections titled "Domestic policy" which appear to focus more on the Labour government than Wilson himself. Perhaps portions could be moved to Labour Government 1974–79, in a way that the actions of the government are still summarised concisely in this article. -- HazhkTalk 08:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I moved some text. Rjensen (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I did the same just now; moving various reforms carried out during Wilson's second premiership to the Labour Government 1974–79 page. zictor23 (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.geneticmatrix.com/Wilson-Harold-Human-Design-Chart.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Lucas559 (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No copyright issue. the text in question was 1) written originally for  Wikipedia 2) copied word for word by Genetricmatrix (including our own footnote numbers); 3) we moved it to another article on Wilson's government; 4) we moved it back here.  5) the bot noted that #2 and #4 were identical but failed to see that #2 was an exact copy of our #1.  So I put it back to #1.  Rjensen (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Copy and pasting
We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please send permission for release under a CC BY SA license to permissions-en@wikimedia.org per WP:CONSENT. user: Zictor23 please paraphrase your source for edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Wilson&diff=667085069&oldid=666960672 --Lucas559 (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Please could you specify which aspects of the edit appeared to be infringing on someone else's copyright? It was not my intention to do this. I take copyright very seriously.zictor23 (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * there is no copyright issue. the text in question [The widow's earning rule was also abolished.....] was 1) written originally for  Wikipedia 2) copied word for word by Genetricmatrix (including our own footnote numbers); 3) we moved it to another article on Wilson's government; 4) we moved it back here.  5) the bot noted that #2 and #4 were identical but failed to see that #2 was an exact copy of our #1.  So I put it back to #1.  Rjensen (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Date of death
Changed this back to 24 May 1995. This corresponds with all obits including Independent and Telegraph from 25 May 1995. I think date in GOV.UK history must be typo. Martin Rattigan (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Born Huddersfield, West Riding of Yorkshire, England, United Kingdom ('old' not 'new')
Where his place of birth is shown, it says "United Kingdom" (i.e., current UK, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, as the present UK did not begin until 7 December 1922, it should be amended to show the 'old' UK instead, i.e., the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Harold Wilson was born in 1916 and therefore in a Huddersfield that was part of the 'Old UK', not the current version. CAN SOME KIND SOUL (who has access) PLEASE HAVE THIS AMENDED SOMETIME? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.250.103 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As we do not link to countries then we would just put UK - but because of the problems that UK gives it is redundant. I have changed to England to avoid confision. Keith D (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Harold Wilson. 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/20121028013514/http://www.socialiststudies.org.uk/cinc%201930s.shtml to http://www.socialiststudies.org.uk/cinc%201930s.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150713180501/http://www.jamd.com/search?assettype=g&assetid=2634403&text=wilson+meir+brandt to http://www.jamd.com/search?assettype=g&assetid=2634403&text=wilson+meir+brandt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

He did send soldiers to Vietnam
Wilson sent soldiers to Vietnam to help train the South Vietnamese forces. (Fghf12 (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC))
 * Source? Straw Cat (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Decolonization
How odd is it that a PM that presided over the largest decolonization in history does not even have the word colony or colonial or decolonisation mentioned on his page. This is downright fraudulent when it concerns the economics of the day. This 'balance of payments' that he struggled with had a lot to do with UK industry losing its captive colonial audience overseas. This is why the UK needed the (future) EU. It also needed to improve the terrible quality of the products it was used to forcing down colonial throats. Jcwf (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Gaddafi Money
I see it hasn't been updated since 2009. In today's money it's £ 131,740,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.226.161 (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Harold Wilson. 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/20100521055324/http://www.waronwant.org/about-us/our-history to http://www.waronwant.org/about-us/our-history
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020011047/http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=340222&rel_no=1 to http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=340222&rel_no=1
 * Added archive http://webarchive.proni.gov.uk/20111219191720/http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/yg-archives-pol-st-results-3009-011011.pdf to http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/yg-archives-pol-st-results-3009-011011.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070421180710/http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page129.asp to http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page129.asp

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) 01:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harold Wilson. 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/20131105051327/http://www.thespiritof45.com/how-we-did-it to http://www.thespiritof45.com/How-We-Did-it

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) 15:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Harold Wilson Number 10 official.jpg

Four terms not two terms
Technically Wilson had four terms as Prime Minister that covered two separate periods.

First term 1964-66 Second term 1966-70 Third term 1974 Fourth term 1974-76

It is therefore incorrect for this article to state in the headings that 1964-70 was his first term and 1974-76 was his second. 122.106.83.10 (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Baron Wilson of Rievaulx (?)
Poorly educated on the subject of British Knighthood, I wonder shouldn't a Baron have his seat in the House of Lords ? (Wilson appears to be the last PM with a such title, the question is general). Our articles on British PM's isn't very clear on these matters. Boeing720 (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the question. The article makes it clear that he was first knighted (which gave him the title Sir, but not membership of the House of Lords), and then later made a life peer, taking his seat in the Lords and the title 'Baron Wilson of Rievaulx'.  (The Baron cancels out the Sir; he remained a Knight of the Garter with KG after his name, but you don't call anyone 'Baron Sir ..').  Where is the confusion? Philip Trueman (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

"though in private he preferred cigars"
This is open to dispute. In his book "How to be a Minister" Gerald Kaufman, who knew Wilson well, states that this is a widely held belief that was not true. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Made link re marine pilotage / Maritime pilot
Article says

 * His last speech was in a debate on marine pilotage in 1986

I've made "marine pilotage" link to our article "Maritime pilot" -

 * A maritime pilot, marine pilot, harbor pilot, bar pilot, or simply pilot, is a sailor who maneuvers ships through dangerous or congested waters

- which seems to be the most relevant article that we have.

If anyone knows of a better article to link here, please fix this.

Thanks.

- 2804:14D:5C59:8833:0:0:0:1003 (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Call to Prayer
Is there any foundation to this anecdote? The story goes that during one of the economic crises that occurred during Wilson's times as PM, it was suggested that it might be helpful to call the nation to prayer. Wilson is reported as retorting "Things are not bad enough for that!" Probably apocryphal, but has anyone else heard this? Douglasson (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization
When an editor cites three academic style guides in addition to Wikipedia's own, the least one can do when reverting is cite one such guide saying otherwise. To ignore all these is not constructive. Surtsicna (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Decriminalisation of Homosexuality
Harold Wilson’s administration was in power when the law changed in 1967 in England & Wales only. Scotland & Northern Ireland’s laws were not changed until under Mrs Thatcher. I have amended this to make this clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.124.181.139 (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Bolshevik paragraph
It says during the beginning underneath the infobox "Wilson joked about leading a Cabinet made up mostly of social democrats, comparing himself to a Bolshevik revolutionary presiding over a Tsarist cabinet"

Is that him saying Bolshevik or the wikipedia article because it sounds like it means to refer to the socialist revolutionaries given the context, who the Bolsheviks despised. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 12:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Re: Harold Wilson during the Nigerian-Biafran war
Your team wrote extensively about Harold Wilson, without mentioning that he was the British Prime Minister at the time of the Nigerian-Biafran civil war. During that war the British government actively supported the Nigerian troops through the provision of ammunition and bomber planes. At the same time, the British Red Cross played a humanitarian role in the same war. Through its role which it played to protect British interests, some Biafrans lost their lives and properties. It is therefore not right that your team glossed over that fact. The story of that war which lasted from 1967 to 1970, cannot be complete without mentioning the ignoble role that the British played under the government of Harold Wilson. Thanks to the Red Cross that helped out. 92.40.175.118 (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Near-drowning incident
The description of Wilson's misfortune on the Isles of Scilly is currently unsourced. Isabel Wolff, one of the passers-by involved in his rescue, was on Radio 4's Saturday Live today, describing the incident (her interview starts at 30:06). I'm hesitant to add this as a source since it's a first-party account, although there seems no reason to doubt her story. What do others think? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Aldo Moro Harold Wilson.jpg

Harold Wilson’s government role in Biafra War.
There is no accounting for Wilson’s duplicitous role in the mass starvation and death of Ibo peoples in the secessionist state of Biafra during the Nigerian Civil War. His support of the Federal cause was strategic for Britain, but blind to the support of a Federal Nigerian government whose army committed unspeakable atrocities. Wilson’s conduct was damning. He deserves no accolades here but condemnation. 70.24.136.113 (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Date of death
It looks like this was briefly discussed on here by an editor several years ago, but there appears to be a slight discrepancy about Wilson's date of death. While the majority of sources cited here give his date of death as 24 May 1995, the Oxford references seem to uniformly cite 23 May 1995, including the Dictionary of National Biography entry, which cites his death certificate as a source (subscription, UK library card, or Wikipedia Library login needed to view this) In addition, his gov.uk page gives a date of 23 May here. The previous editor suggests that this was a typo, which would have been my instinct too before I saw the ODNB entry.

(Less clear, but maybe worth mentioning, is that his New York Times obituary, dated 25 May, says he died "yesterday", but includes a quote from Mary Wilson in which she says her husband died "around midnight", which could indicate late on 23 May or at least indicate where some of the confusion comes from, if he died at the transition between the two days.)

I don't know what this means for the article, perhaps nothing at all, because there are a number of reliable sources which also say 24 May. But there does seem to be a small but somewhat substantial body of sources which do give a different date.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Mathematics
Re this revert, Mathematics is used here as the name of an academic subject, not to denote mathematics in general. MOS:JOBTITLES does not mention academic subjects, but just job titles. So it presents examples such as "Theresa May was the prime minister of the United Kingdom" and "Louis XVI was the king of France when the French Revolution began." Mathematics is a proper noun here, just like United Kingdom or French Revolution. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Harold Wilson


text:
User:Kunjan1029

Kunjan's website is http://kunjan.net

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Kunjan1029


text:
Canada Party

The Canada Party was a short-lived political party in Canada that nominated 56 candidates in the 1993 federal election and one candidate in a 1996 by-election. It was unable to win any seats. The party was populist and ran on a platform of banking and monetary reform. It also advocated direct democracy, referendums and recall elections.

One element of their direct democracy policy was the proposal that the prime minister and cabinet members be elected by the government party's caucus in the House of Commons of Canada. The party argued that this would remove the power that the prime minister currently has to command loyalty from caucus members in return for the rewards of more authority in the government, e.g., appointments to Cabinet or to parliamentary secretary positions.

Many of the party's supporters were members of the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform, and later joined the Canadian Action Party. Some had been active in the Canadian social credit movement which shared similar views on monetary reform.

The party was founded by Joseph Thauberger, who had been an unsuccessful Social Credit Party of Canada candidate in the 1972 election. Saskatchewan and British Columbia were the main sources of the party's membership. The first national meeting was held in Toronto a few weeks before the 1993 election. The party won 7,506 votes in that election.

During a televised forum of minor party leaders, Thauberger said to Neil Paterson, the leader of the Natural Law Party of Canada, "For the life of me, I can't imagine how you expect to meditate away the national debt!"

In 1994, Thauberger stepped down and was replaced by Claire Foss at a meeting in Winnipeg. In the run-up to the 1997 election, the party's board voted to support Paul Hellyer's Canadian Action Party because of that party's support for monetary reform. Foss ran as a CAP candidate in Okanagan—Shuswap where he received the largest number of votes of any CAP candidate. Foss was also a CAP candidate in the 2004 election but he fared poorly at the polls.

title: Canada Party


text: Talk:Appeal to fear

title: Talk:Appeal to fear


text:
Fedora

A fedora is a hat with a soft brim and indented crown. It is typically creased lengthwise down the crown and "pinched" near the front on both sides. Fedoras can also be creased with teardrop crowns, diamond crowns, center dents, and others, and the positioning of pinches can vary. The typical crown height is 4.5 in. The term fedora was in use as early as 1891. Its popularity soared, and eventually it eclipsed the similar-looking homburg.

The fedora hat's brim is usually around 2.5 in wide, but can be wider, can be left raw-edged (left as cut), finished with a sewn overwelt or underwelt, or bound with a trim-ribbon. Stitched edge means that there is one or more rows of stitching radiating inward toward the crown. The Cavanagh edge is a welted edge with invisible stitching to hold it in place and is a very expensive treatment that can no longer be performed by modern hat factories. Fedora hats are not to be confused with small brimmed hats called trilbies.

Fedoras can be made of wool, cashmere, rabbit or beaver felt. These felts can also be blended to each other with mink or chinchilla and rarely with vicuña, guanaco, cervelt, or mohair. They can also be made of straw, cotton, waxed or oiled cotton, hemp, linen or leather.

A special variation is the rollable, foldaway or crushable fedora (rollable and crushable are not the same) with a certain or open crown (open-crown fedoras can be bashed and shaped in many variations). Special fedoras have a ventilated crown with grommets, mesh inlets or penetrations for a better air circulation. Fedoras can be lined or unlined and have a leather or cloth or ribbon sweatband. Small feathers are sometimes added as decoration. Fedoras can be equipped with a chinstrap, but this is uncommon.

History
The term fedora was in use as early as 1891. Its popularity soared, and eventually it eclipsed the similar-looking homburg. The word fedora comes from the title of an 1882 play by dramatist Victorien Sardou, Fédora, which was written for Sarah Bernhardt. The play was first performed in the United States in 1889. Bernhardt played Princess Fédora Romazoff, the heroine of the play. During the play, Bernhardt – a noted cross-dresser – wore a center-creased, soft brimmed hat. The hat was fashionable for women, and the women's rights movement adopted it as a symbol. After Edward, Prince of Wales (later the Duke of Windsor) started to wear them in 1924, it became popular among men for its stylishness and its ability to protect the wearer's head from the wind and weather. Since the early part of the 20th century, many Haredi and other Orthodox Jews have made black fedoras normal to their daily wear.

Fedoras in early American society
During the early twentieth century, a hat was a staple of men's fashion and would be worn in almost all public places. However, as a social custom and common courtesy, men would remove their hats when at home or when engaged in conversation with women. In addition, the ability to own a hat was culturally considered a sign of wealth due to fashion being recognized as a status symbol. Only those with few economic resources would venture out without a hat. The introduction of a new line of felt hats made from nutria, an animal similar to the beaver, helped establish the fedora as a durable product. Prices, in the first decade of the twentieth century, for a nutria fedora ranged from ninety-eight cents to two dollars and twenty-five cents. Starting in the 1920s, fedoras began to rise in popularity after the Prince of Wales adopted the felt hat as his favored headwear. As a result, "the soft felt hat replaced the stiff hat as the best seller in the decade". The fedora soon took its place as a choice hat and joined other popular styles that included the derby and the homburg.

In America during the 1940s, the brims of fedoras started to increase in width, while the British maintained a slightly smaller brim size. The colors of fedoras traditionally included shades of black, brown, and gray. However, this palette would grow at the onset of the second world war to include military themed colors such as khaki, blue, and green. One of the most prominent companies to sell fedoras was the department store Sears, Roebuck and Company. In addition, famous hat manufacturers which still exist today include Bailey, Borsalino, and Stetson.

Women and fedoras
In the 1880s, long before the fedora became popular for men, French stage actress Sarah Bernhardt popularized the fedora for a female wearer. In the play Fédora by the French author Victorien Sardou, Bernhardt played Princess Fédora Romazoff. It soon became a common fashion accessory for many women, particularly among activists campaigning for gender equality during the late nineteenth century. The fedora was eventually adopted as a defining symbol of the women's rights movement.

Fedoras continue to be worn by women, but not quite to the same extent as in the early twentieth century. Women's fedoras vary in form, texture, and color. In addition, these fedoras come in almost every color from basic black to bright red and even in the occasional animal print. Along with men's felt hats, women's fedoras were described as making a comeback in an article about 2007 fashion trends. Baseball caps, which had been the staple of headwear, were experiencing a decline in popularity amidst this "fedora renaissance".

Make and form
Fedoras are usually made by pressing a piece of felt over a mold, and using some kind of heat or sealant to help the felt keep its shape. In the past, molds were created by using a series of wooden blocks to create the shape of the hat, and the felt was pressed on with an iron. The current method is to use metal molds and machinery to create enough pressure to form the shape of the hat. After the general shape of the hat has been achieved, the hat makers attach some sort of decoration, usually a ribbon, between the brim and the crown of the hat. The brim is either left raw, or hemmed. The fedora is considered a soft hat, which means that it is usually constructed from felt, fur, or animal hides. There are variations from hat to hat, but the standard design includes a creased crown, angled brim, a pinch at the top of the hat, and some sort of decoration above the brim of the hat. Men's fedoras especially tend to have stylized brims with edges that are turned down in the front and up in the back. As mentioned earlier, the width of the brim, overall size and color of the hats are subject to change with fashion trends. Women's hats also tend to have more elaborate decorations and slimmer designs.

Because of the soft nature of the hat, many variations are possible with fedoras. One variation of the hat includes the Stetson playboy hat which was common in the 1940s. The Stetson playboy hat involved a marketing success story, with a simple variation on the general form of the fedora becoming a significant trend in America. Al Capone was fond of the playboy style. Many pictures of Capone depict him sporting a Stetson playboy hat.

Contemporary takes on the fedora include asymmetrical brims, bright colors, eccentric patterns, and flashy decorations. Some fedoras are now made from straw, and other unconventional materials. However, despite the increase of artistic hats, the most commonly worn fedoras are still neutral colored, with simple shape and design.

In popular culture
Coach Tom Landry wore the hat while he was the head coach of the Dallas Cowboys. It would later become his trademark image. A cenotaph dedicated to Landry with a depiction of his fedora was placed in the official Texas State Cemetery in Austin at the family's request. In addition the Cowboys wore a patch on their uniforms during the 2000 season depicting Landry's fedora. His panel in the Cowboys “Ring of Honor” features a depiction of a fedora where a uniform number is shown for players.

Two Lupin III characters, Daisuke Jigen and Koichi Zenigata, wear fedoras as their regular wear; Jigen because he's a retired gangster, and Zenigata because his look was inspired by old-time detectives such as Dick Tracy.

Indiana Jones re-popularized the fedora in the Indiana Jones franchise. The backstory of how he obtains the hat is told in the prologue of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, the third film of the series, and the character who gives him the hat is credited as "Fedora".

Tom Baker's Fourth Doctor from Doctor Who wears a fedora almost identical to that of Indiana Jones.

The character Freddy Krueger, from the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise, also wears a brown fedora.

The fedora hat of the ninth president of Turkey, Süleyman Demirel, was a famous part of the president's image.

Ice hockey coaches often wore one, most notably coaches Punch Imlach, Toe Blake, Billy Reay, and Murray Armstrong.

In the 21st century, the fedora has made a reappearance in the fashion world along with other types of classic hats such as the porkpie and the homburg. In addition, the fedora has appeared in recent portrayals of movies and television shows that are set in the past, such as Mad Men (2007–15), Shutter Island (2010), and Boardwalk Empire (2010–14). Michael Jackson also frequently wore a fedora while performing on stage.

By the early 21st century, the fedora had become a symbol of hipsters. Vice has referred to the early 2000s as a "fedora renaissance", with celebrities like Johnny Depp and Peter Doherty wearing the hat. By 2016, the term "fedora" became derisively associated with neckbeard and incel stereotypes in online culture, with Vice stating "fedoras may be the single most-hated fashion accessory money can buy", despite the fact that the hat in question is nearly always a trilby rather than a fedora. A popular meme featuring actor Jerry Messing tipping a trilby with the dialogue of "M'lady" is often associated with such spoofs of incel culture. A 2016 issue of The Unbeatable Squirrel Girl depicts Marvel Comics villain Mole Man reenacting the "M'lady" meme on the cover.

In film noir
The fedora was worn by film actors such as Edward G. Robinson, George Raft and Humphrey Bogart. The fedora was a characteristic of film noir and has been the chosen accessory of movie detectives and criminals alike. It was worn by Bogart as Sam Spade in The Maltese Falcon (1941) and Philip Marlowe in The Big Sleep (1946). Peter Eliopoulos wrote in The 1930s: The Reality and the Promise: "The popular Bogart-styled fedora was worn slightly cocked, it was pulled down just above the eye line, so that the wearer peaked beneath the brim and through the cigarette smoke that gathered momentarily before curling itself around the top of the hat."

Billy Wilder wrote and directed the film Fedora (1978), which takes its title from the female lead character played by Marthe Keller. In addition, fedoras are a strong theme throughout the picture. Most of Wilder's film's feature fedoras prominently in promotional materials as well as in the finished films.

Gangsters and jazz
Fedoras were much associated with gangsters during Prohibition era in the United States, a connection coinciding with the height of the hat's popularity between the 1920s and the early 1950s. In the second half of the 1950s, the fedora fell out of favor in a shift towards more informal clothing styles. In addition, well-known gangsters such as Al Capone, Charles Luciano, and Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel used the fedora to create a "tough guy" image.

Fedoras were an important accessory to the zoot suit ensemble which emerged onto the American fashion scene during the 1940s. Zoot suits were mainly associated with Mexican and African Americans and were largely worn in segregated minority communities. As a result, this style soon spread to local jazz musicians who adopted this look and brought it to their audiences.

In the movie of the same name, The Blues Brothers (who are blues musicians rather than jazzmen) wear black scant-brim fedoras as part of their black suit "uniform."

The association of the fedora with the zoot suit and gangster culture has caused the general public to view it according to this limited connotation.

In Orthodox Judaism
In Orthodox Judaism, fedoras have been an important addition to a man's wardrobe. Lithuanian yeshiva students in the first half of 20th century wore light hats during prayer and sometimes even while studying, as evident in a rare footage of the Ponevezh Yeshiva and a photo of the Lomza Yeshiva, both in Eastern Europe. Both the footage and the photo show students studying in their hats. Hasidic Jews wore black hats, albeit not fedoras, and in the later half of the 20th century, non-Hasidic (Lithuanian style) yeshiva students began to wear black fedoras (or dark blue or gray). Today, many yeshiva students and Orthodox men wear black fedoras for prayer and many even while walking outside. In recent years, Sephardic Jews have begun to wear black fedoras too.

title: Fedora


text:
Alfred Sauvy

Alfred Sauvy (31 October 1898 – 30 October 1990) was a demographer, anthropologist and historian of the French economy. Sauvy coined the term Third World ("Tiers Monde") in reference to countries that were unaligned with either the Western bloc or the Eastern bloc during the Cold War.

Biography
Sauvy was born in Villeneuve-de-la-Raho (Pyrénées-Orientales) in 1898 to a family of Catalan wine-growers, and educated at the École Polytechnique. After graduating, he worked at Statistique Générale de France until 1937. He took part in the X-Crise Group. From 1938, he was economic advisor to Minister of Finance Paul Reynaud until the Second World War broke out in 1939.

Under the Nazi occupation, Sauvy contributed to the Bulletins rouge-brique, a government-sanctioned periodical. After the war, Charles de Gaulle offered to appoint him to the position of General Secretary for Family and Population, but Sauvy preferred to devote himself to demographics.

From 1940-1959, he taught at the Institut d’études politiques (IEP) and was Professor of Social Demography at the Collège de France.

He became director of INED (National Institute of Demographic Studies) and simultaneously represented France at the commission of Statistics and Population of the United Nations. He was a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1973) and the American Philosophical Society (1974). He wrote for Le Monde until his death in October 1990.

Key ideas
Writing in 1949, Sauvy described potential overpopulation as a 'false problem' and argued against attempts at global population control. He suggested examining countries on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they lack the raw materials and natural resources that can support a larger population. Otherwise, he thought that we run the risk of underpopulating a country that could support a much larger population

Sauvy coined the term 'Third World' in an article published in the French magazine, L'Observateur on August 14, 1952. He wrote:

 * "...car enfin, ce Tiers Monde ignoré, exploité, méprisé comme le Tiers Etat, veut lui aussi, être quelque chose"
 * "...because at the end, this ignored, exploited, scorned Third World, like the Third Estate, wants also, to become something".

Sauvy coined Third World by analogy with the Third Estate and the above quote is a paraphrase of Sieyès's famous sentence about the Third Estate during the French Revolution.

Works

 * 1958 De Malthus à Mao-Tsé-Toung (Collection Thémis -Sciences sociales)
 * 1977 Coût et valeur de la vie humaine—Paris : Hermann, 210 p.
 * 1980 La machine et le chômage : les progrès techniques et l'emploi—Paris : Dunod/Bordas, 320 p.
 * 1984 Le travail noir et l'économie de demain—Paris : Calmann-Lévy, 304 p.
 * 1985 De la rumeur à l'histoire—Paris : Dunod, 304 p.
 * 1990 La terre et les hommes : le monde où il va, le monde d'où il vient—Paris : Economica, 187 p.

Legacy
The Prix Alfred Sauvy (Alfred Sauvy Prize) is awarded annually to startup projects and social enterprises in the Pyrénées-Orientales region.

There are streets named after Sauvy in Pollestres, Rivesaltes, and Villemolaque in France.

title: Alfred Sauvy


text:
User talk:MorningsideRiot

Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. Why don't you drop us a note at New user log to introduce yourself?

If you need editing help, visit How does one edit a page. For format questions, visit our manual of style

Some time when you're bored, you can read through our policies and guidelines. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. You can also drop me a question on my talk page.

Happy editing, Isomorphic 07:59, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:MorningsideRiot


text:
Archimedean point

An Archimedean point (Punctum Archimedis) is a hypothetical viewpoint from which certain objective truths can perfectly be perceived (also known as a God's-eye view) or a reliable starting point from which one may reason. In other words, a view from an Archimedean point describes the ideal of removing oneself from the object of study so that one can see it in relation to all other things while remaining independent of them.

For example, the philosopher John Rawls uses the heuristic device of the original position in an attempt to remove the particular biases of individual agents to demonstrate how rational beings might arrive at an objective formulation of justice.

Origins
The term refers to the great mathematician Archimedes, who supposedly claimed that he could lift the Earth off its foundation if he were given a place to stand, one solid point, and a long enough lever.

The idea for the term is attributed to Descartes in his second Meditation, who refers to Archimedes requiring only "a point that was firm and immovable," with regard to finding certainty: "Archimedes, that he might transport the entire globe from the place it occupied to another, demanded only a point that was firm and immovable; so, also, I shall be entitled to entertain the highest expectations, if I am fortunate enough to discover only one thing that is certain and indubitable."

Criticism
Sceptical and anti-realist philosophers criticise the possibility of an Archimedean point, claiming it is a form of scientism.

title: Archimedean point


text:
Clark Byers

Clark Byers (25 January 1915 – 17 February 2004) was an American sign maker. He is famous for painting over 900 barns in 19 states with the slogan "See Rock City" from 1935 to 1969.

A native of Trenton, Georgia, Byers started painting advertising on barns in the American South and Midwest for the Rock City attraction atop Lookout Mountain, Tennessee. Rock City's owners offered barn owners a free paint job and Rock City souvenirs in exchange for allowing Byers to placing a marketing message on their barns.

Because the barns came in various shapes and sizes, each sign was different, but all featured white lettering on a black background, executed in freehand. The number of words and their arrangement varied, based on the size and shape of the barn. On larger barns, Byers might have painted "See 7 States from ROCK CITY atop Lookout Mt. near Chattanooga, Tenn." and on smaller barns, just "See Beautiful ROCK CITY today."

Byers' efforts led to Rock City, Lookout Mountain, and Chattanooga becoming a national tourist destination.

title: Clark Byers


text:
Perrette Pradier

Perrette Pradier (born Perrette Marie Mathilde Chevau; 17 April 1938 – 16 January 2013) was a French actress and dubbing director. She is best known for her work as a voice actress which earned her the nickname of "Queen" or "High Priestess" of dubbing.

Biography
Pradier was born in Hanoi, French Indochina. Two years after making her film début, in 1961, she was awarded the Prix Suzanne Bianchetti as most promising new actress in France for her performance as "Amenita" in the Sacha Guitry film, "Stop Thief." That year she gained further recognition for her role as "Constance Bonacieux" in two films based on the Three Musketeers. Throughout the 1960s, she appeared in a number of films in her native France, then was contracted for Hollywood productions that included the Fred Zinnemann film Behold a Pale Horse (1964) starring luminaries Gregory Peck, Anthony Quinn, and Omar Sharif. She returned to English-language filming in the Universal Studios thriller, House of Cards (1968) with Orson Welles and George Peppard.

In her long career, Perrette Pradier has also worked in live theatre, appearing in plays such as La Bonne Addresse as well as the longest running French play ever produced, Boeing Boeing. In 1994, she was the voice of "Sarafina" in the French version of the Walt Disney Studios animated feature film, The Lion King.

Death
Pradier died of a heart attack on 16 January 2013, aged 74, in Rueil-Malmaison, France, a month after being operated for an aneurysm.

Filmography

 * Le Roi Lion (The Lion King) (1994) (voice)
 * ''Le Big Bang (1987) (voice)
 * Fiével et le nouveau monde (An American tail) (1986)
 * Les Dalton en cavale (1983) (voice)
 * Comme une femme (1980)
 * Le Comédien (1976) (TV)
 * Le Temps de vivre, le temps d'aimer (1973) TV Miniseries
 * Céleste (1970)
 * House of Cards (1968)
 * Au théâtre ce soir: Boléro (1968) (TV)
 * Le Judoka, agent secret (Judoka-Secret Agent) (1966)
 * L' Homme d'Istamboul (That Man in Istanbul) (1965)
 * Furia à Bahia pour OSS 117 (OSS 117: Mission for a Killer) (1965)
 * L' Amour à la chaine (Tight Skirts, Loose Pleasures) (1964)
 * Behold a Pale Horse (1964)
 * Des frissons partout (Jeff Gordon, Secret Agent) (1963)
 * Blague dans le coin (1963)
 * Les Saintes nitouches (Wild Living) (1962)
 * Le Crime ne paie pas (Crime Does Not Pay) (1962)
 * The Burning Court (La chambre ardente) (1962)
 * Les Sept péchés capitaux (The Seven Deadly Sins) (1962)
 * Les Amours de Paris (Paris Loves) (1961)
 * Le Jeu de la vérité (The Game of Truth) (1961)
 * The Three Musketeers (1961)
 * The Nabob Affair  (1960)
 * La Brune que voilà (There Is the Brunette) (1960)
 * Les Scélérats (The Wretches) (1959)

title: Perrette Pradier


text: User talk:147.9.159.142

title: User talk:147.9.159.142


text:
Peter Secchia

Peter Finley Secchia (April 15, 1937 – October 21, 2020) was an American businessman and Republican political activist, who also served as the United States Ambassador to Italy and San Marino from 1989 to 1993.

Education and early life
Secchia was born in Englewood, New Jersey. He grew up in nearby Tenafly and graduated from Tenafly High School and then went on to attend Michigan State University. He left the university because he could not afford tuition and joined the Marines. He eventually earned a degree in economics in 1963.

Career
Secchia served in the United States Marine Corps from 1956 to 1959 and graduated from Michigan State University in 1963 with a degree in economics.

Secchia was a fund-raiser in the Republican Party in Michigan. He started as chairman of the Kent County, Michigan Republican Committee and later became the chairman of the 5th Congressional District of Michigan committee. He was elected to be Michigan's Republican National Committeeman in 1980, 1984, and 1988. Secchia was a vice chairman of the Republican National Committee and headed its Midwest Region. He was host chairman of the 1985 RNC Midwest Leadership Conference in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He was on the national advisory committee of the 1988 George Bush for President Committee. Secchia founded the Lake Michigan Conference, and was a national co-chair of the Dole for President Campaign.

From 1989 to 1993 Secchia was the United States' ambassador to Italy. His nomination was controversial as he was one of several made by Bush of long-time financial backers and financial supporters, including Walter Curley (ambassador to France), Joseph Zappala (Spain), Mel Sembler (Australia), Frederic Bush Morris (Luxembourg), and Joy Silverman (Barbados).

Secchia was the CEO and chairman of the board of Universal Forest Products, a company that manufactures engineered wood components. He was Chairman of the River City Food Company which has 29 restaurants, catering facilities, and banquet locations in the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.

In 1994 he was appointed to chair the Secchia Commission I by Michigan governor John Engler, which was focused on improving government services. The Secchia Commission II focused on public sector pensions.

He received the Cavaliere di Gran Croce (The Knight of the Great Cross). He also was awarded the Department of State Distinguished Honor Award during his service as ambassador to Italy, an award given to serving ambassadors and to non-career ambassadors.

Secchia served for twelve years on the board for John Cabot University in Rome. Secchia was a member of the National Italian American Foundation Council of 1000. He was founding president of the West Michigan Lodge of the Order of Sons of Italy in America; he inaugurated the Festa Italiana, the region's largest annual ethnic festival and has participated in and sponsored many Italian-American events. He was awarded the NIAF Special Achievement Award for International Affairs, and lent his name to The Founding Values Initiative Award... the "Secchia Award for Heartfelt Commitment."

Philanthropy
In 2010, Secchia made a $1 million outright donation to Michigan State University, to be used to build a new stadium for the women's softball team at Old College Field, named Secchia Stadium.

Secchia Hall, a building on the MSU College of Human Medicine Grand Rapids campus, is named after Secchia. The building is part of the Grand Rapids Medical Mile.

Secchia Hall, a residence hall on the Grand Valley State University's Pew Campus, is also named after Secchia.

Death
Secchia died on October 21, 2020, after contracting COVID-19 during the COVID-19 pandemic in Michigan on top of other health issues over several months.

title: Peter Secchia


text:
Charles Christian Hammer

Charles Christian "Sir Charles" Hammer (17 May 1952 – 18 February 2004) was an American classical guitarist.

Charles Christian Hammer was born in Chicago and grew up in Riverdale, Illinois. Hammer took up the guitar in his youth after hearing The Beatles on The Ed Sullivan Show. He purchased his first guitar with earnings from a newspaper route. Hammer was influenced heavily by The Beatles throughout his career.

During the 1970s Hammer moved to Mexico where he studied Spanish guitar. Hammer stated that his nickname, "Sir Charles", was given to him about this time by a "fairy princess" with golden hair, but it is more probable that the nickname arose from comments about the styling of his blond hair or the baroque puffy-sleeved shirts he wore on stage.

In the 1980s Hammer moved back to the United States, establishing himself as a local act in the small artist's retreat of Eureka Springs, Arkansas, where he performed at weddings and parties.

During this time and into the 1990s Hammer experimented in the studio. He generated 11 albums that combined electric and classical guitar but fell short of his long established goal of producing 30 albums during his lifetime.

In the late 1990s, Hammer taught guitar and music history at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville and earned a Bachelor of Arts degree and a master's degree in music. In 1998 he was awarded a music composition fellowship by the Arkansas Arts Council. Hammer's final album was a classical guitar rendering of several of his favorite Beatles songs.

Just prior to his death Hammer began to experience some commercial success in the foreign market and was scheduled to tour three cities in Mexico. Hammer was a much-loved figure in Eureka Springs, especially by the local children for whom he put on school concerts.

In 2003 he was diagnosed with lung cancer. Charles Christian Hammer died on 18 February 2004 at St. Mary's Hospital in Rogers, Arkansas. Hammer was survived by his long-time partner, Poco Carter, and their dog Prema.

title: Charles Christian Hammer


text:
Suzanne Bianchetti

Suzanne Bianchetti (24 February 1889 – 17 October 1936) was a film actress.

Suzanne Bianchetti appeared in her first film in the early 1900s and quickly became one of France's most loved and respected actresses. She appeared as Marie Antoinette in Abel Gance's 1927 epic, Napoléon and worked with many of the early notables of the silent film era such as Antonin Artaud and the singer, Damia.

She was married to writer and actor René Jeanne (1887–1969) who served as the director of L'Etablissement Cinématographique des Armées.

Prix Suzanne Bianchetti
When Suzanne Bianchetti died in 1936 at the age of 47, the following year, her husband created an award in her memory to be given annually to the most promising young actress. It was given for the first time in 1937 to actress Junie Astor (1912–1967) for her performance in the film, Club de femmes. The award comes in the form of a medallion engraved with Suzanne Bianchetti's image. Since its inception, the Prix Suzanne Bianchetti has been awarded to many of the greatest names in French cinema who went on to national and international success, such as Micheline Presle, Simone Signoret, Annie Girardot, Geneviève Bujold, Audrey Tautou and Isabelle Adjani.

Partial filmography

 * Trois familles (1919, Short)
 * Sa gosse (1919)
 * Flipotte (1920)
 * La marseillaise (1920) - Lise de Dietrich
 * Une brute (1921)
 * Le rêve (1921)
 * Le père Goriot (1921)
 * The Mysteries of Paris (1922) - La marquise d'Harville
 * Jocelyn (1922) - Julie, la soeur de Jocelyn
 * The Courier of Lyon (1923) - Clotilde d'Argence
 * La légende de soeur Béatrix (1923) - Nilidor
 * Imperial Violets (1924) - Eugénie de Montijo
 * L'enfant des halles (1924) - Princesse Mila Serena
 * La flambée des rêves (1924) - Suzanne
 * L'heureuse mort (1925) - Lucie Larue
 * Madame Sans-Gêne (1925) - L'Impératrice Marie-Louise
 * La Brière (1925)
 * Le Nègre blanc (1925) - Suzanne
 * The Night Watch (1925) - Princesse Hedwig
 * The Adventures of Robert Macaire (1925) - Louise de Sermèze
 * Napoléon (1927) - La reine Marie-Antoinette
 * The Loves of Casanova (1927) - Catherine II
 * Verdun, visions d'histoire (1928) - L'épouse
 * Kiss Me (1929) - Marquise Aurore
 * Cagliostro (1929) - Marie-Antoinette
 * Les Mufles (1929) - Laure Jantet
 * The Man Without Love (1929) - Duchesse de Rogall
 * Princes de la cravache (1930) - Mme d'Arbeiller
 * The King of Paris (1930) - Duchesse de Marsignac
 * Verdun, souvenirs d'histoire (1931) - La femme
 * The Mad Night (1932) - Clotilde
 * Imperial Violets (1932) - Eugénie de Montijo
 * Aux portes de Paris (1935)
 * Napoléon Bonaparte (1935) - Marie-Antoinette (uncredited)
 * The Call of Silence (1936) - La femme du monde (final film role)

title: Suzanne Bianchetti


text:
Talk:Luo Binwang

Untitled
I replaced the external link, because the English version of the page linked to before isn't working. The new link is to my own translation, which I'd rather not link to, but I can't find any other translations on the net. Anyone who can, please do change it! Markalexander100 08:35, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Luo Binwang. 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/20080209005818/http://ef.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw/ccw/02/tan20.htm to http://ef.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw/ccw/02/tan20.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080209133431/http://ef.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw/ccw/02/ntan22.htm to http://ef.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw/ccw/02/ntan22.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080209005818/http://ef.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw/ccw/02/tan20.htm to http://ef.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw/ccw/02/tan20.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080209133431/http://ef.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw/ccw/02/ntan22.htm to http://ef.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw/ccw/02/ntan22.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) 22:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Luo Binwang