Talk:Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleQueen Elizabeth The Queen Mother 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 26, 2007.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 12, 2007Good article nomineeListed
February 27, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
March 30, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 4, 2017, and August 4, 2022.
Current status: Featured article


Infobox image (2)[edit]

Proposed image

I would like to seek a consensus regarding using the following image for Elizabeth's infobox. I would much rather use an actual photo of her rather than a painting since photography was around. If there are no objections for the proposed image within 1 week, I will implement the image. Interstellarity (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better to use a colour image. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to use color photos preferably,George VI seems to have not found a suitable color official photo 2401:E180:8811:94BC:757B:D8E5:9B4E:605 (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I prefer to a colour image as well. But, I would also support a high quality image from 1930s or 40s which would show her around the same age her husband is being depicted at in his article. Note that the article on their daughter Elizabeth II also has a lede image that shows her in her youth. However, it is my understanding that no such photo with a good quality exists of the Queen Mother on Wikimedia Commons. Keivan.fTalk 02:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. A B&W image from her younger years would be good if one can be obtained with the proper free-use license. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from the soldier...[edit]

the quote from the soldier she treated should be removed from this page. The page cannot be modified for avoiding vandalism, yet the language used by the soldier she treated is injurious itself. Some magazines or journals may use this language, but I see no point in using it on Wikipedia (I wanted to remove that part, but unfortunately there's the lock on it to avoid "vandalism"). Surely the soldier used the same horrific words to give a different meaning and to give a better meaning and praise the queen, but even just such injurious and violent language should not be allowed here especially when not relevant and not really explaining historical facts (which still I would avoid explaining if so violent). Hopefully someone decides to remove the quote of the soldier she treated.

This is the part that uses offensive, violent and graphicly violent language to "praise"(???) the queen which I hope can be removed from the entire page: "One of the soldiers she treated wrote in her autograph book that she was to be "Hung, drawn, & quartered ... Hung in diamonds, drawn in a coach and four, and quartered in the best house in the land."[16]". 5.168.135.139 (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2023[edit]

I believe this part: "One of the soldiers she treated wrote in her autograph book that she was to be "Hung, drawn, & quartered ... Hung in diamonds, drawn in a coach and four, and quartered in the best house in the land."[16]" should be removed from this page since it is just violent, graphic (altough at the end he used those words to "praise" the Queen) and even doesn't add any value or further explanation about the part of history related to the Queen Mother Elizabeth I. 5.168.135.139 (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done WP:NOTCENSORED. DrKay (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per the question, I'm not sure "WP:NOTCENSORED" applies here. If we have a source for the Queen Mother's preferred shoe-size and someone put it in, it would be removed as trivial and not adding value to the article. It wouldn't be censoring to remove it. This is simply a question of worthiness in a summary bio article. It's certainly more pertinent than shoe size, but if it was missing, the article would never know it either. I assume it was placed here years ago by consensus, and that's the reason it stays... longstanding consensus... which is perfectly valid at wikipedia. I should point out that "hung" is not derogatory since it's an improper use of the word. You can be hung in diamonds, but if executed you are "hanged" not hung. I think we can forgive a wounded soldier his grammar. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2023[edit]

Add "consort" after "Queen" in the opening line.

[Reasoning: She was Queen by right of her husband, King George VI. She was not "Queen regnant," as was her daughter, Elizabeth II.] 2600:1008:B164:12EF:EA1B:11FD:93F2:1A07 (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The word "Queen" alone does not imply that she was a queen regnant. A queen can be queen regnant or queen consort but the title is "The Queen". The opening sentence makes it clear that she is the latter by stating that she was Queen of the UK as the wife of George VI. Keivan.fTalk 19:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image (3)[edit]

Given the number of actual photographs that exist of the subject, I don't know why we are using a painted portrait of her as the main infobox image (it is simply not done for any other monarchs or consorts of whom photos do exist). I have selected a few suitable candidates from the Commons which I am going to list below. Everyone is welcome to take a look at them and examine license details, etc.; or even add to the list. Depending on the level of participation, I might turn this into an RfC to get a broader consensus. Keivan.fTalk 19:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option A (1925, coloured) Option B (1939) Option C (1942) Option D (1970) Option E (1975) Option F (undated)
I prefer the painted portrait. It's in colour and it's realistic, so I see no advantage in using a black and white or false colour photograph. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a policy that dictates the use of colour photographs. Personally, I believe no matter how realistic the painted portrait looks, it's still a painting and is not as accurate as a photograph when it comes to showing facial features. Let's see what others might think. Keivan.fTalk 13:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since she was queen consort between 1936 and 1952, and her and her husband excelled at inspiring the citizens throughout World War II, perhaps an image of her during those years may be appropriate as a lead image. Will be interested in reading comments from others on this topic. Then again, the present image is very noble and well done, and portrays her during her many years of being honored by her country. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think an image during her time as consort would be more appropriate as lead image. However the current lead image is clearer than the alternatives provided so would lean towards keeping what we already have. Mn1548 (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]