Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.
Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon edit
Queen Consort of George VI of the United Kingdom; Mother to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
Support Self-nominated There were some problems with POV raised at Peer review, but I hope that these are now resolved. DrKiernan 09:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support- the work done by DrK has surely brought it up to FA status. Astrotrain 09:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Wow...I don't think I could be more impressed. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 00:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Factually accurate,well researched,well presented.An example of what a FA should be. Lemon martini 14:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good article, well written. However, after a quick scan I'd of like to have read mention of the following from Woodrow Wyatt's diaries and other sources about Bowes-Lyon's views of the commonwealth, and African efforts to end apartheid [1]. Which is one of the few things that sticks in my mind when I think of her as a person. Of note is ....
- that she supported apartheid era President PW Botha of South Africa.
- Or, that she supported the few liberal policies introduced by Botha: interracial marriage – which had been banned – was legalised; the constitutional prohibition on multiracial political parties was lifted; the Group Areas Act, which barred non-whites from living in certain areas, was relaxed; constitutional reforms granted limited political rights to "Coloureds" (South Africans of mixed white and non-white ancestry) and Indians; and he was the first South African government leader to authorise contacts with imprisoned ANC leader Nelson Mandela. DrKiernan 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- that she often drank a toast at the end of dinner to Margaret Thatcher who opposed sanctions against South Africa.
- It is also said the Queen and Thatcher didn't like one another, so would be unlikely to drink a toast to her.
Mrs. ThatcherAndrew Neil once said to Brian Walden and Woodrow Wyatt, whilst they were discussing the animosity between the Queen and Mrs. Thatcher: "The problem is, the Queen is the kind of woman who could vote SDP." Wyatt's comments should be judged with the knowledge that Wyatt was a supporter of Thatcher himself, and that the Queen Mother might say something complimentary to charm Wyatt, and Wyatt might have read too much into it. DrKiernan 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is also said the Queen and Thatcher didn't like one another, so would be unlikely to drink a toast to her.
- that she scolded black Commonwealth countries which had been pressing for sanctions.
**Perhaps because she felt that by imposing sanctions the worst hit economically would be the black African population? (I'm not defending that position, I'm just saying that others held it) DrKiernan 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) I can find no evidence in Wyatt that she scolded any Commonwealth countries for demanding sanctions. DrKiernan 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- that she described Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia as "an idiot" for demanding sanctions.
If this has already been discussed then forgive me. If not, then perhaps it should be.-- Zleitzen(talk) 20:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that all these comments either jar with other recorded comments made by her (such as "I love communists") or can be taken two ways, I think it best to avoid them. DrKiernan 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also she had no role in politics, so any views that she may have aired are of no real relevance. Astrotrain 10:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The exclusion of these points shouldn't bar the article from reaching featured status, as DrKiernan is correct to note that they are debatable. However, Be warned that the exclusion of various verifiable details on the basis that perhaps she meant something else - or that they could be judged in a certain light by us - is problematic. If I've spotted possible ommisions at first glance, then be sure that others will in the future. It may be worth pre-empting that by adding a sentence or so briefly covering these points in an NPOV way, rather than seeing some POV hack coming along and making a mess of it after it reaches featured status. In response to Astrotrain, all major British royals have a role in politics whether they like it or not, and their political views are of notable interest to articles.-- Zleitzen(talk) 16:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good article, very readable. As far as POV language goes, I found only one pressing sample: "Her ceaseless smile, endurance and longevity gave a consistent impression of stable continuity." The only other problem I have is with the image QM Arms.png, which is of too poor quality for a FA. Tweak the wording of that one sentence and find a larger/higher resolution image, and I'll gladly support this as a FA. Caknuck 01:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a better quality image of her arms- unfortunatly it was deleted when the coat of arms pages were all deleted by that stupid Orphanbot. Astrotrain 10:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oppose POV issues and other problems.
- "Her ceaseless smile, endurance and longevity gave a consistent impression of stable continuity."
- “During the war, her seemingly indomitable spirit provided moral support to the British public,” - that’s an opinion/perception stated as fact. It needs to be stated in terms of an opinion popularly put forward rather than “the truth” .
- ”Although the King was initially reluctant to support Churchill, in due course both the King and Queen came to respect and admire him for his courage and solidarity.” => for what they perceived to be his courage and solidarity.
- “Her birthdays became times of celebration” – for who?
- “she helped to stabilise the popularity of the monarchy as a whole.” Needs elaboration and clarification. How did she help stabilise public opinion? And is there any tangible evidence other than the opinion of Lawrence Goldman in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography?
- “Despite her reputation as holding conservative family values (after the U.S. President Jimmy Carter kissed her on the lips, she said "No man has done that since my husband died."[72]), she held liberal views on homosexuality.” I don’t think the US style political dichotomy “liberal – conservative” is appropriate here. What are “conservative family values” and how do her comments about Jimmy Carter relate? The evidence provided re:homosexuality proves that she was tolerant of homosexuals, not that she “held liberal views on homosexuality”.
- I'm not sure tolerant is right either. She was more than tolerant - she was supportive of her homosexual staff when it was suggested they be dismissed. Perhaps we can use gays in the military as a comparison - the "conservative" view is "sack gays", the "liberal" view is "gays should have the same employment rights", the "tolerant" view might be Clinton's compromise: "gays should keep their sexuality a secret". On this scale she might be "liberal". I've rewritten the section, so as to avoid using these labels. DrKiernan 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You have included the criticisms from unreliable American hack, Kitty Kelly, yet as of now there is still no inclusion of the verifiable analysis I have provided above by Francis Wheen, a prominent British journalist.-- Zleitzen(talk) 20:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But Wheen is a left-wing writer with an obvious political motive, which does not apply to the biographers1 used as main sources. There are already about twice as many citations to left-wing newspapers as to right-wing ones in the article (which is understandable - it accords with my own reading preferences). I am not personally convinced that the current balance between sycophantic hagiographers and their socialist opposers is weighted one way or another. Nevertheless, I may gain access to a copy of Wyatt's journal on Wednesday evening, and I would like to assess that before considering whether to make the edits you've suggested in your comments above. DrKiernan 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 1I do not include Kelley in the term "biographers", but I think it would prove problematic to remove that material. I imagine other editors would wish to re-insert it. DrKiernan 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your changes, DrKiernan. I still worry about the "ceaseless smile.." and the "admire Churchill for his courage.." lines, the first just doesn't read like an encyclopaedic entry. As her smile obviously wasn't ceaseless, it reads as more of a platitude or a Daily Mail caption. The second needs to be phrased in a way emphasising that Churchill's "courage and solidarity" was in the eyes of the subjects. Regarding the Guardian piece, I don't particularly like articles that use random criticism from journalists, and I personally can't stand Wheen but I still feel that his piece represents a notable perception, one that I was well aware myself. -- Zleitzen(talk) 16:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 1I do not include Kelley in the term "biographers", but I think it would prove problematic to remove that material. I imagine other editors would wish to re-insert it. DrKiernan 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided I'm not at all impressed by Wheen's reading of Wyatt's diary. The actual conversation on South Africa reads,
[Queen Mother]: How disgraceful it is that the press is trying to involve the Queen in the row about sanctions and whether some states might leave the Commonwealth.
[Wyatt]: Is there any truth in the story that she [the Queen]'s at odds with Mrs. Thatcher?
[Queen Mother]: None whatever (vol. I p. 167)
So, she does not say that she is against sanctions. What she actually says is that she is against the Queen becoming involved in politics. The passage "She thinks it is awful how the BBC and media misrepresent everything that Botha is trying to do." (vol. I p. 101) is accurately reported by Wheen, but as I said before that could be in relation to his few liberal policies. These are the only mentions of her in relation to South Africa in the entire 3 volumes. In fact, on reading the journal, it is Wyatt who is revealed to be a right-wing racist, not her. When he rubbishes the blacks by saying that they are not like us, her contribution is, "I am very keen on the Commonwealth. They're all like us." (vol. II p. 547) I'm more than ever convinced that Wheen's comments are unrepresentative and bias, and should not go in the article. DrKiernan 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello DrKiernan. Thanks for getting hold of the diaries. I'll bow to your better judgment on this and put it down to a typical Wheen slur, of which he has become increasingly associated with. I thought about the Churchill sentence, it still reads as though his "courage and solidarity" is a given. I'm not sure the Kurds would agree; "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes" etc.[2]-- Zleitzen(talk) 16:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello! In my reply to your request for qualification of Churchill's character I very nearly wrote a second sentence along the lines of: "Indeed, I could claim that 'courage and solidarity' could easily read 'bravery to the point of foolhardiness, and bloody-minded obstinacy', and still be an accurate representation of his character." But then I thought better of it and decided to be polite. Anyway, this is a long way to say, I shall add your suggested qualification. DrKiernan 16:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.