Talk:Elizabeth I of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleElizabeth I of England 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 September 7, 2004.
Article milestones
February 9, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
June 14, 2007Featured topic candidateNot promoted
December 10, 2007Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team  
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 ???  Quality: not yet rated
 ???  Importance: not yet rated
Version 0.5
WikiProject iconThis article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

May not have been told[edit]

We are told that "Mary may not have been told of every plot". If the article is going to include everything Mary might and might not have known or been told, it will get very long.

Tomb image[edit]

Elizabeth as shown on her tomb at Westminster Abbey

I see no rational reason to remove this image from the Death section. "No room" does not look to me like a rational excuse to remove the only sculpture we know of, of Elizabeth's face, which is likely to be an accurate portrait. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The effigy is not mentioned in the article at all, while the funeral is discussed in detail. That suggests that the funeral deserves to be depicted more than the effigy. There is no indication in the article that the effigy is an accurate depiction (any more so than the paintings) and her face is hardly visible from that angle anyway.
You should not place images in random paragraphs. The depiction of her funeral is completely irrelevant to the paragraph that does not mention either the funeral or her death. The image of the effigy also has no place but next to the paragraph mentioning her tomb. For more information, see MOS:LAYIM. Surtsicna (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I placed both images in the "Death" section, as anyione can see from history. I don't know why the grave has been moved out of there again later. Will fix that now, again.
If we are going to remove all the images of graves from the all WP articles just because the monuments are not described in the articles' texts, we're ging to be very very busy. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Moved out of Death section again with this summary "I did not remove either image from the death section. I just placed each image next to the relevant paragraph, as required by the Manual of Style." ??? On my big modern screen, both images were well within the limits of th Death section, both yesterday & today, when I had put thewm there.
"You cannot put images in random places jut because you like them there." this accusation, thus, is totally incomprehensible to me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
You placed the images in the first paragraph of the section. The first paragraph does not discuss her funeral or her entombment. She is not even dead yet in the first paragraph. See MOS:LAYIM; you cannot place image in random places. If the tomb image is to be included, it should be next to the paragraph mentioning the tomb.
I am not saying that the grave image should be removed because it is not described in detail but because the article cannot support so many images. I believe I won't be very far from the mark if I say that there exist hundreds of depictions of Elizabeth. We even have a whole article about them: Portraiture of Elizabeth I of England. In this case, the tomb image, when placed where relevant, encroaches into the section below, creating a very messy layout. That mess is still better than having a tomb image in a random place. Surtsicna (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Hoping for some constructive help here. I believe that the gave image (1) is relevant, (2) can be placed within the death section where there is room for it and (3) does not need to be placed messy.
I also believe we can discuss this and almost anything in any article without mentioning each other at all. "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Makes WP work much more pleasant for everyone, I think. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
When did I mention your personality? Why make such a claim? If you are asking me not to comment on your contributions (e.g. you placed the image in the wrong place), you can forget it. Seriously :D Surtsicna (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
"Personality" ? We can discuss all these things without mentiioning each other, as per cited guideline. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
No, you cannot cooperate with someone without addressing them and their actions. Nowhere in the world is that expected. The guideline you cited advises not to comment on the "personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." I honestly cannot believe I have to say this. Surtsicna (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Hi all, answering your request for a third opinion. Image should definitely stay. It is relevant to the article, a notable tribute to her legacy that stands in a notable location, and is easily expanded upon in text due to many acceptable sources that can be found about the tomb. I'd say placement of the image is a bit nitpicky; I think most editors would argue it is best as it is now, but is fine anywhere in the death section. I would suggest changing the caption to something more like "Sculptural depiction of Elizabeth on her tomb in Westminster Abbey". Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 02:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! On my computer, which I believe has a standard modern big screen, the grave image is not now withinin the death section, where it was before, for years, until recently when it was removed altogether. But there is still plenty of room for it there. Now, it falls between that section and the following section, which I think looks not too great. I cannot understand why that's necessary since there definitely is room for it in the Death section. If I move it back where I think it belongs, I'll be reverted at once. That has happened 3 times already in the last few days, with edit summaries that do not make any sense to me, according to how the article & section & image appear on my screen. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I moved the pictures around and left an edit note asking others to join the discussion here if they disagree. If edit-warring occurs you can pursuit other means of dispute resolution.Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 18:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that the image of the tomb is fine anywhere in the Death section. Her actual death is not mentioned until the end of the second paragraph. Having the image of the funeral procession in the first paragraph is absurd. It is not relevant there and looks out of place. The rest of the article adheres to the image placement guideline, with images placed only in relevant paragraphs. If you consider the tomb image more useful than the funeral one, we should remove the funeral one. I'll ping users who have worked on the article before, namely DrKay and Celia Homeford. Surtsicna (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Vertical placement. Both images were always in the death section and both are pertinent to that section. The exact placement is always going to be somewhat personal because of differences in screen size, resolution, browser, and operating system: things over which we have no control. Personally, I prefer images to be adjacent to the text to which they refer and not just placed at the start of a section. While I think the images were fine further into the section, near to where the funeral and tomb are actually mentioned, I don't think that an image of a funeral at the start of a section entitled Death is too out of place either. DrKay (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem with shifting images up to the top of the section becomes apparent if you use mobile view, which is the view seen by most users of wikipedia: A minority of readers use a big screen, so it's not representative of most page views when we only look at the layout of images on one. You can see from the mobile view that the funeral image is way up at the top of the section, three paragraphs from where the text talks about the funeral. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking the time to explain things that I found very confusing, using a standard library computer of the most modern kind. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I moved the image to the top to space them out a little. I personally don't think its a major issue to have the funeral picture at the top because it is contained within the death section; readers will obviously know she died and having some kind of funeral isn't an unexpected outcome. I think its close enough that readers can connect the content with the picture. However, I think there are ways we could rearrange them to be a little closer to the correct content if it is desired. I would strongly oppose deleting one of the photos because I think they both compliment the article well and I don't think its too cluttered or there are too many pictures.Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 01:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Religion and anti-catholicism[edit]

I´d like to add a part in her religious policy. I feel that her policy regarding cahtolicism was among the most relevant aspects of her reign, both by numbers, by the nobility it created and got rid of, and by the laws it left behind. It certainly is seen as such from outside England, considering that her legitimacy as queen depended on her aren´s marriage being valid to start with. Everything would be sourced of course. Is everyone ok with it?

Since I´m at it, I can add a section of relationships with Spain and Portugal, since Philip II has a section of relationships with England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cateyed (talkcontribs) 02:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

We already have a section! Frankly, Cateyed, this is a WP:FA, and your English is so full of mistakes that you should suggest a draft wording here with anything you feel needs to be added. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I can do that if you want. And the article makes a mention to it, that is why I suggested a section. It mentions Mary. It mention her personal convictions, but there is not a word for the laws she introduced. It mentions that she got a "softer" version of the Act of Uniformity 8true) and repelled the previous heresy laws, but there is no mention of those of her own that she introduced, or for the prosecution aspect that authors such as Verstegan, Rudé or Coogan mention. I understand that those are not the main focus of the article, but the article essentially estates that "Mary was mean and everyone was happy when very tolerant Elizabeth came along", which is a really debateable subject at best. William Cobbet, for example, said that "Elizabeth alone killed more people than the Inquisition in all of their history". This is clearly not true (he estimates 1000 people, others estimate 800, the Inquisition got 1300, she got less by all counts, but still not bad) but said the numbers should be addressed, even if it is just to say that they have been checked and found to be false, and the many revolts she faced initially should also get some time, especially when both things contrast too much with the tone of the rest of the article, don´t you think? And yes, this is a WP:FA, and I am dyslexic. Neither one is an argument for how the bibliography is missing any critical voices, let alone from outside the English speaking world. I assumed that the idea of wikipedia was to get something as complete as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cateyed (talkcontribs) 05:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Seymour[edit]

The language in the section "Thomas Seymour" should be edited, as the current section sugarcoats sexual abuse and seems to excuse it. I would argue that "Elizabeth experienced an emotional crisis" should be changed to "Elizabeth experienced sexual abuse". Likewise: "Thomas Seymour [...] engaged in romps and horseplay [...]" change to "Thomas Seymour, subjected the 14-year-old Elizabeth to "romps and horseplay". The fact that he was 40, or had charm or a powerful sex appeal has nothing to do with it and in fact makes it seem like it could have been consensual. Also: "However, after Parr discovered the pair in an embrace..." change to "However, after Parr discovered Seymour embracing Elizabeth..." - in a sexual abuse situation, one should not talk of "a pair" or "a couple" as that implies consent and equality.

It is also unclear from the text, why Elizabeth was interrogated as potentially guilty when Seymour was arrested on suspicion

of plotting to marry Elizabeth. This should be made clear or the section (see below) removed. 

"In January 1549, Seymour was arrested on suspicion of plotting to marry Elizabeth and overthrow the Lord Protector. Elizabeth, living at Hatfield House, would admit nothing. Her stubbornness exasperated her interrogator, Sir Robert Tyrwhitt, who reported, "I do see it in her face that she is guilty".[27] Seymour was beheaded on 20 March 1549." — Preceding unsigned comment added by WalterVII (talkcontribs) 11:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

She was over the age of consent. The language in the article should reflect the sources, so we can only put any of this in if there are sources supporting it. DrKay (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Family Tree[edit]

Henry VIII's sibling branch is incomplete: add his brother Arthur [1] to the branch. He was a pivotal figure considering that he was the first husband of Catherine of Aragon. Even so, that notwithstanding, I think it matters. Just sayin'!

Sscohn (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think he's important here. He's not mentioned anywhere in the article and was dead decades before Elizabeth's birth. The purpose of the tree is to show connections to people relevant to Elizabeth's life not to give a full family tree of all her relations. DrKay (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^,_Prince_of_Wales