Jump to content

Talk:Elizabeth II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleElizabeth II is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 2, 2012, and on September 19, 2022.
Did You KnowIn the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 29, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 15, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
January 26, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
August 26, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
January 26, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 22, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
February 23, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
May 21, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 31, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
February 4, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
September 14, 2011Good article nomineeListed
February 21, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
January 14, 2023Featured article reviewKept
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 2, 2006.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Queen Elizabeth II (pictured) once worked as a lorry driver?
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 9, 2015, June 2, 2022, and September 8, 2022.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 2, 2004, February 6, 2005, June 2, 2005, February 6, 2006, June 2, 2006, June 2, 2007, February 6, 2008, February 6, 2009, February 6, 2010, February 6, 2012, February 6, 2015, February 6, 2017, February 6, 2019, February 6, 2022, and November 20, 2023.
Current status: Featured article

Main Photo

[edit]

I would be in favour of changing the image of Elizabeth II to a photo from sometime in the middle of her reign, as that’s what most people will remember her as.

This photo is on the Commons: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Her_Majesty_Queen_Elizabeth_II_of_the_Commonwealth_Realms.jpg Waverland (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, I have never liked the current photo from 1959 so I'd be mor than happy for it to be changed. Although, I must admit that the 2015 Photo looks better and should be reinstated https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Queen_Elizabeth_II_in_March_2015.jpg Pepper Gaming (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can we not open a new RFC to discuss this? Pepper Gaming (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's unlikely everyone's changed their minds after the very deliberate discussion that was only a year ago. Remsense诉 11:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
18 months ago now, but I agree. Choice of photo for an infobox can be subjective, so I’m not keen on re-opening the issue once a consensus was reached. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely understand that, and if a consensus was reached then that must be accepted. I just think that the photo of the 33 year old Queen is not a good representation for how the majority of the public will remember her, but as you say it is definitely subjective. Waverland (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with @Waverland, But I think it's time to open an RFC. I've never liked the portrait for many reasons (The fact that it is a Painting, rather than an actual photograph is one of those reasons). I'm still not budging from my original opinion (an opinion I formed 18 months ago when the image was first changed). And I feel like it should be changed to at least a Photograph of the Queen rather than a Painting Pepper Gaming (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a painting. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it isn't a painting, then what is it? Pepper Gaming (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I'm stumped. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out it's an early colour photograph. But it also looks like a painting at the same time. It's so confusing Pepper Gaming (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do like the 2015 photo better than this one. Cremastra (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While i agree with you, it’s not a painting, the portrait of the Queen Mother is but this one is an actual photo. Waverland (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So it's an actual Photograph and not a Painting? I've always thought of it to be the latter Pepper Gaming (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve just checked and it was take by Donald McKague in December 1958, published in 1959. Waverland (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pepper Gaming said:
"But I think it's time to open an RFC. I've never liked the portrait for many reasons (The fact that it is a Painting, rather than an actual photograph is one of those reasons). I'm still not budging from my original opinion (an opinion I formed 18 months ago when the image was first changed)."
Thank you for letting us know that you reject WP:CONSENSUS and will continue to raise this issue until you get your own way. Duly noted. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last RFC voted for this one by a vote, as I recall, of 16 to 12. A year is long enough for minds to change or new views to come from new editors. I see nothing wrong with a new RFC.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1, consensus can change over time. A new RfC would not be against policy.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've already been through this, multiple times. The 1959 image is what got consensus. PS - I highly doubt you'd get a consensus to replace the image, with a portrait. GoodDay (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
completely understandable, but I think you misunderstood what was being said. there was no discussion to replace the current photo with a portrait, rather confusion over whether the current image was a photograph or a painting. Waverland (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All that is needed is the same level of consensus that got this on the page, that is a majority vote in a preference poll. Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay Can I ask what you mean by "I highly doubt you'd get a consensus to replace the image, with a portrait"
Do you mean with replacing the current (1959) image with a Painting/Drawing?
(And to clarify, part of the reason why I was opposed to the 1959 image in the first place was because I originally thought it was a Painting/Drawn portrait Pepper Gaming (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A photo is better than a painting. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I was opposed to the 1959 image for a long time because I thought it was a Painting or a Drawn portrait. Pepper Gaming (talk) 10:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A photo is also better than something that's easily mistaken as a painting. Ric36 (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess we're still getting nowhere with this. Ric36 (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support a change to something in the 2020s Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand how it can be mistaken for a painting. What aspects look painted? The light play on the jewels, the hair detail, and everything else show it to be a photograph. Cremastra (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s bad photo. Change it to the coronation one. 2A00:23EE:19A0:1D71:C5E4:49EA:D3A3:E3B3 (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. Remsense ‥ 论 07:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request: Pertaining to The Commonwealth Realms exclusion and inclusion

[edit]

In both the short description and certain other spots I have attempted to simply add the line "and the other Commonwealth Realms" or equivalent as this is important information. However, each time I have attempted this it has been removed. So, I have come down to the talk section in order to discuss this.

I firmly believe that it would better reflect the fact that the Commonwealth Realms are of equal status to that of the United Kingdom.

Each crown that Her Majesty had is equal in status to that of the UK and thus should be treated as such in the short description and whenever appropriate to do so, as opposed to being excluded from relevant spots. Since this article isn't just about Her Majesty as the Queen of the UK, rather being about Her Majesty as a whole, including all her Queenly titles, I truly think that it would be better if the Commonwealth Realms were given equal prevalence to the UK. I see no reason why this isn't an entirely reasonable request as, like I said, all of these crowns are entirely equal to each other.

Aggressively Monarchist Australian (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The intro, infobox, etc, are as they are via consensus to abide by WP:WEIGHT. GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decolonisation of Asia

[edit]

I watched the back-and-forth going on about the exact wording of the lead. Wouldn't it be better to discuss it here? Repeatedly reverting creates bad feeling, deters other editors from getting involved, and can be cause for a block. Please don't. John (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The changes made, were problematic & needed to be reverted. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "decolonisation of Asia" is not an appropriate phrase as British control of the foreign affairs of Afghanistan and Bhutan, and overt control of Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Bangladesh, and Burma, had come to an end by 1952. However, "handover of Hong Kong" might be a useful addition to the list of notable events in the third paragraph of the introduction. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
During her reign the following Asian territories (British colonies and protectorates) became independent: Aden Colony (1963), Bahrain (1971), Brunei (1984), Hong Kong (handover to China 1997), Kuwait (1961), Federation of Malaya (1957), Crown Colony of North Borneo (1963), Crown Colony of Sarawak (1963), Qatar (1971), Singapore (1965), Trucial States/UAE (1971), Maldives (1965). Consequently, I don't really see a problem with this addition. DeCausa (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you will be able to point to the sourced material in the body of the article that supports this summary clause. DrKay (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or per WP:LEADCITE we could take a less combative approach and just add a source to the attempted addition which is so obviously not WP:OR. You should know by now that not being in the body of the article doesn't mean it can't be in the lead. Or are you seriously saying you dispute the factual nature of the list I gave? Based on this incorrect edit summary that list is clearly news to you so maybe you are. DeCausa (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LEAD, the lead should not contain material not found in the article body. The edit summary merely refers to the 4 largest and comparing them to any 4 of the smallest. I was obviously aware of the list since it was given in a preceding edit summary. Besides, note the list of countries provided by Celia--major, well-known large countries that everyone has heard of. What's on your list? Aden Colony? Brunei? Sarawak? Trucial States? Most people haven't heard of them. Note also the heads of state of many of these countries--Bahrain, Brunei, Kuwait, Malaya, Maldives, Qatar, and the Trucial States--were the same before and after the dates you've given. Elizabeth was not the head of state and was not involved politically in their transition, unlike the African states. The decolonisation of Asia happened predominantly before 1952, not after. It is misleading to suggest otherwise. DrKay (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Most people haven't haven't heard of..." Singapore, Kuwait, Qatar, Malaysia, Bahrain...sheesh. Obviously the FA needed edit warring against that disruption. DeCausa (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't refer to any of those five in that comment. DrKay (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? DeCausa (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On reviewing the body of the article I find that the reference to decolonisation of Africa in the lead is no more sourced than the attempted addition of decolonisation of Asia. The only reference to it in the body is in this passage:

The 1960s and 1970s saw an acceleration in the decolonisation of Africa and the Caribbean. More than 20 countries gained independence from Britain as part of a planned transition to self-government. In 1965, however, the Rhodesian prime minister, Ian Smith, in opposition to moves towards majority rule, unilaterally declared independence while expressing "loyalty and devotion" to Elizabeth, declaring her "Queen of Rhodesia".

But that is cited to this Guardian article. It fails verification for the first two sentences. The source only discusses Rhodesia not decolonisation in Africa in general. So we have an unsourced reference to African decolonisation in the lead. DeCausa (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puffery and grammar in opening sentence

[edit]

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; 21 April 1926 – 8 September 2022) was Queen of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms from 6 February 1952 until her death in 2022. She was queen regnant of 32 sovereign states over the course of her lifetime and remained the monarch of 15 realms by the time of her death. Her reign of 70 years and 214 days is the longest of any British monarch or female monarch, and the second-longest verified reign of any monarch of a sovereign state in history. This was the first part of the lead to this level 4 article.

The above is overly wordy. It contains bloated language reflectinmg the deference of certain editors. For example, '...by the time of her death' = when she died. Eg..'verified reign of any monarch of a sovereign state in history'. = she was verified so she must be important' 'any sovereign state' = this makes her more important than a non-sovereign state, even though we won't bother defigning sovereignty here, not that it is in the least bit relevant to the intended meaning. It is also clearly noted in the linked article of long reigning monarchs. Female? Unnecessary, except if you want to stress that the reign was long. It looks as though whoever wrote this was bowing down before their keyboard. Just keep it as simple encyclopedic English that can be understood easily without wading through superfluous puffery. Grammar - remained...by the time of her death, should by...at the time of her death. The last sentence is grammatically wrong too. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The words 'verified' and 'any sovereign state' were used because there are longer reigns than hers or Louis XIV's in antiquity and in non-sovereign states. DrKay (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks fopr your reply. Yes, I know that is possibly the reason but it is unnecessary IMO to insert it (the words used are therefore superfluous). People will assume we are not talking about a native chief somewhere or a semi-mythical king in antiquity. There comes a point when explaining everything to be spotlessly precise is counterproductive. There is a link to a list of longest reigning monarchs anyway that will deal with those other cases. I think the main aim should be to make the lead comfortably readable, which adding lots of extra words to convey a meaning does not do. For example, the four jubilees were repeated, four with the type of jubilee and then with the years (which is unnecessary if we know her ascention date - people should know that a silver jubilee is after 25 years, we don't have to tell them, and then tell them that 1952 plus 25 is 1977. This is what I mean by puffery. It comes across that we are trying to force on the reader that in our view she was extra special and so we are justified in using five words to say something when only one is necessary. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II&oldid=1246683167"