Talk:Edward Heath

Ireland

I thought I saw Heath admit to some part of Bloody Sunday in an interview in the early nineties. When asked about the Tianenmen Square massacre I recall him saying "Oh, the Chinese just did what we did on Bloody Sunday". There was a moment of silence, and then the interviewer moved swiftly on. Does anyone else remember this? It had a sense of unreality about it, given the way it was handled, and afterward I could never be sure I heard it. Look of horror on his face at what he had said will stay with me forever, though.--Muinchille1

Yup, it's mentioned in one of the final chapters of the 2010 Ziegler biog, along with confirmation that Heath was handsomely remunerated by various major companies for opening doors to China. That said, when before the Saville Inquiry, Heath vehemently denied that the British authorities had specifically ordered the Bloody Sunday killings.

Lead image

I've included two possible candidates to be the lead image to the right. A is the current lede image, while B is (in my view) a better candidate.

A

B

C

E

MOS:LEADELEMENTS says that all images (but the lead image in particular) should be relevant and technically well-produced. And MOS:LEADIMAGE says that the lede image should be representative, a natural representation (I'm not really sure what this means), an appropriate representation and the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works.

B is from 1966, while A is from 1987, which means that B was taken while Heath was Conservative Leader and only four years away from being Prime Minister, while A was taken 12 and 13 years after he had left each of these roles, respectively. And it is clear that Heath is most notable for being Prime Minister. Heath in A doesn't really look like how he looked as Prime Minister, but as an older gentleman. It is clear to me that this makes B a much more relevant and appropriately representative image.

Secondly, A is clearly a better quality image than B. A is 10,157 × 12,633 pixels, while B is 581 × 708 pixels. But this is to be expected, as A was taken over 20 years before B and A is a professional photograph of exceptional quality (for comparison, Harold Wilson's lead image is 1,927 × 2,566 pixels). However, I don't think that B is of a low enough quality to mean that it isn't technically well-produced and the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works (remember Heath was a politician most notably from the 1960s and 70s). And I can't find anything on MOS:IMAGES that specifies a minimum size. Anecdotally, on my rather large monitor, I can't notice the low quality at all and we must remember that the image will only appear on phone screens and in the top right hand corner of the page.

Finally, and I realise that this may be subjective and that it may not really fit into any Wikipedia policy, but B is clearly a kinder image of Heath than A, A being taken when he was in his 70s and not really smiling. Please let me know what you think about this! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The Allan Warren photo has been the consensus lead image for quite a while, and I'm happy with it because it is probably the best photo of Heath on Commons. Not a great fan of B as the infobox image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I was wondering what you meant by "best" and why you're not a great fan of B. Thanks a lot in advance! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The Allan Warren photo is technically and artistically the best photo of Heath. It also looks good in the infobox, which B doesn't as it is a less clear angle.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for getting back to me. That's very clear. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that a photograph from the period when he was PM would be more appropriate. I do not think the issue should turn on the technical or artistic quality of the image as a portrait, for the reasons given by FollowTheTortoise, so long as it is of reasonable quality. However, I do not think that photo B is the most flattering of Heath, and if a better one could be found, that would be preferable. --Blurryman (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I completely agree and will keep a lookout for a better image. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I've added an option C. It might not be terribly kind (though it's not as bad as A), but Heath is almost facing the camera, it is from 1969 and it's 952 × 1,178 pixels, which is larger than B and (I think, at least) of a high enough quality for this article, especially when you bear in mind the fact that Heath's premiership began over 50 years ago! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

C is better but I'm not keen on Heath's forced smile (one of his trademarks). You can browse all of the photos of Heath on Commons here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me again! The big smile does seem to be a trademark of Heath's, so perhaps it makes C a more natural and appropriate representation? I think that this image would be perfect, but I don't think that it's avaliable to us. I've also added an option E, which I've seen around Wikipedia, but it is from 1960, so possibly shows Heath a little too young (though it's not as out of date as the 1987 picture and still shows Heath as a minister) and it's only 581 × 724 pixels (which might not disqualify it, but may still act against it). FollowTheTortoise (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

What about this one? It might be possible to get permission from the National Portrait Gallery. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

This would undoubtedly make a good infobox image if it was CC licensed, but since the National Portrait Gallery is selling it for money they are unlikely to allow its license to be changed. We'll have to stick to the ones on Commons. E is okay but it does show Heath as quite a bit younger than his term as Prime Minister.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree. In my view, C is the best image that we've got. ~~~ FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

A - I dont see anything wrong with the current image. 16:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment! If you have a moment, it would be really useful if you could explain in a little more depth what you think about my concerns that A isn't very contemporaneous. It would also be useful to know, while you can't see anything wrong with A, whether you think that C (or B or E) would be a better pick. Thanks in advance. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

There isn't a rule saying that it has to be a photo showing him as Prime Minister. This was only from 1970-74 and he lived to be 89. Overall, the Allan Warren image is still the best one.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts and thank you for taking the time to reply to me! That is true in an explicit sense. But the manual of style does say that the lead image should be relevant and representative (see above), which I understand as meaning that the image should be contemporaneous to the period that the subject is best known for (which for Heath is 1970 to 1974). To me, this means that the image should be from around this time and represent the subject as they were at this time, criterium I don't think that A meets. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

As someone who remembers his tenure as PM, I find A B has a striking resemblance to the caricatures by Michael Cummings and is too low quality. B C has the trademark greasy smile and beats C E for me. Overall, I agree with the comment by ianmacm. Heath's 'incredible sulk' was a long and notable feature of his public life, and I think it is well captured by the Allan Warren image. William Avery (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for replying! You might have got your lettering confused, but I think that I've got the jist of what you're saying. It is clear to me that Heath was best known for the period 1970 to 1974 (when he was Prime Minister), secondly 1965 to 1975 (when he was Conservative Leader) and then thirdly during his so-called "incredible sulk" from circa 1975 onwards. But this is not to forget his career as a minister and MP before 1965, which perhaps comes fourth. Therefore, the image should preferably be from the first period, but if not then the second period. I personally don't think that it is appropriate to have an image of Heath 12 and 13 years after he stopped being Conservative Leader and Prime Minister, respectively, during a period that he is only third most famous for, and when he didn't really look like he looked as Prime Minister and Conservative Leader. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. I've corrected the letters. William Avery (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

No probs. I made the same mistake! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd vote for photo C. (But what happened to photo D?) --Blurryman (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! It got delayed by the three day week. I might have been thinking about another image that I'd link to when I added E, but it is a mistake. Thanks for pointing it out! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 29 October 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Snow closure. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 14:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Edward Heath → Ted Heath – Nobody ever calls him Edward Heath, it's always Ted Heath, so that's the name we should use for his article, following Wikipedia:Article titles. Richard75 (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. This is how the subject of the article is most commonly referred to in reliable secondary sources, eg BBC News.[1] I'm not seeing a preponderance of Ted Heath in these mainstream sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unlike, say, Tony Blair or Bill Clinton, Heath was and is usually referred to in serious sources by the name Edward. "Ted" is and was used in informal sources, but it is nonsense to say that "nobody ever calls him Edward". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per Ghmyrtle. He was also known as "Teeth Heath" and "Grocer Heath", but wouldn't suggest either of those as a better title. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Ghmyrtle. To provide reference for this, the UK government website refers to him as "Edward Heath", while it refers to Tony Blair as "Tony Blair" (despite Tony being a contraction of Anthony). Combined with other sources, "Edward Heath" complies with WP:COMMONNAME. Bibeyjj (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ian Harvey

Recently I saw a TV interview with Michael Cockerell, in which he mentioned a tale of somebody finding a copy of Ian Harvey's memoirs (1971) lying in Sir Ted's study, inscribed with "To Ted, who knows what's it's like" or words to that effect. When the same person called a second time, the book had been removed and was nowhere to be found.

At least one of Sir Ted's earlier biographers (I forget which one) mentioned that the example of Ian Harvey's disgrace might well have been among the factors causing Heath to keep his inclinations to himself.

I haven't kept up with Michael Cockerell's books in recent years, but maybe he mentions the tale in print somewhere.Paulturtle (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)