Talk:Prince John of the United Kingdom

Other Views

Princes John's eldest brother Edward VIII referred to him as "little better than an animal." Whatever the accuracy that time and sentiment has displaced, can there not be something other than the sentimental hagiography and internets-ASD diagnoses that proliferate even here? It seems so easy for the ignorant, cushioned by their short-bus-joke conditioned mentalities and their self-ascribed "I'm Asberger's me - cos I like Star Wars" nonsense to fail to understand anything about the problems Prince John may really have suffered - especially those that would have necessitated him being removed from others, especially being subjected to the public eye. No - it never occurs to any of you that he may have been prone to masturbating uncontrollably in public, for example - of course none of you have any idea what it is like for an adolescent with such disabilities, never mind the need to ever contemplate such. None of which is encyclopedic any more than the gushing 'nature's innocent special child' bullshit portrayed and endorsed so enthusiatically here. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about John's condition being romanticized. Contemporary reports seem to show he was uncontrollable and sometimes violent and destructive. 4.174.14.56 (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Roxana

The first line of the article states that his epilepsy was the sole reason for him being hidden from the world. Was that really the only reason? Is there evidence of him having any other problems? Werdnawerdna (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Without more evidence, who knows? I'm inclined to agree with Plutonium. I'd like to see any other contemporary accounts, like what Roxana cites. They should be added to the article. --Bluejay Young (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The Lost Prince

Why should the material about The Lost Prince be removed? The article on Michael Oher, for example, includes a comparable passage about The Blind Side. john k (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(1) Because this is an article about Prince John, his life, and the people around him. A mention of dramatic or documentary presentations of his life lends a sense of John's place in popular consciousness, but who played whom tells us nothing about John -- the link to the article on the drama itself is there for readers who wish to learn such details.

(2) For the record, notability is (part of) the test for whether a topic should have its own article, not a test for article content -- see WP:NNC.

(3) Anyway, I feel I have to say that your idea [1] that facts such as ,"The dramatist Stephen Poliakoff wrote and directed ...Charlotte 'Lalla' Bill's character was played by Gina McKee ..." and so on are "the most notable thing about" Prince John, would be laughable if not so weirdly insensitive.

EEng (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Weirdly insensitive? He was a thirteen year old boy who died almost 100 years ago. Everyone who knew or cared about him personally is long dead. Who, exactly, am I being insensitive towards? The existence of an award-winning dramatic film based on Prince John's life is one of the most notable things about him, and probably the main reason that anybody today knows who he is. In such circumstances, it's totally appropriate to have a paragraph discussing the movie. For comparable examples beyond the one I already gave you, see Eric Liddell, Harold Abrahams, Lionel Logue, John Reed (journalist), James J. Braddock. All of those people probably have considerably more independent notability than Prince John does. john k (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Despite the remoteness in time of his death, and his youth thereat, your subordination of the person to the biopic evinces a sensibility I find hard to fathom. And while you're free to limit the modes by which you learn about history to TV (albeit excellent TV) you'd be wise not to assume that everyone else's view of the past is similarly limited.

You keep confusing topic notability with article content; please read [[WP:NNC}} as suggested. I repeat that the fact that there's a film is certainly of interest to readers of the article about him, because they may wish to see it, or read more about it, which they can do by following the link to the article on it. But who played the prince in a film has nothing to do with the prince himself and listing such stuff here is just trivia; it belongs in the article on the drama itself.

That fact that other article contain similar trivia just means that other articles still need a lot of cleanup.

By the way, I put a good deal of effort into copyediting the article overall. Any compliments on that, or criticisms, or did you notice any typos, or have suggestions for improvement?

EEng (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It is perfectly appropriate to discuss fictional portrayals of historical figures in their articles. Do you really think it's inappropriate to note, for instance, Peter O'Toole's famous portrayal of T.E. Lawrence in that article? Maybe I'm using the term "notability" in an imprecise way, but my point is that sometimes much of the coverage of a historical subject in reliable sources comes from a fictionalized portrayal of that subject. The most obvious example would be Macbeth of Scotland. An article about that medieval king would surely be incomplete without a brief discussion of his portrayal in Shakespeare. I believe that the case of Prince John is fairly comparable to this. He may make tangential appearances in biographies of his family members, but Poliakoff's film is probably the most sustained portrayal of the prince, and also the one that has attracted most comment from other sources. I don't think the biographical information should be subordinated to the movie, but I do think it's totally reasonable to include a not all that long paragraph about this very notable film about a rather marginally important historical figure (if we can even call him that). Beyond that, I'll just note that the fact that you've put a lot of work into copyediting the article is totally irrelevant to what we are discussing. It's great that you've done that, but I haven't really looked at what you've done and can't comment on it. The only reason for you to bring it up, that I can see, is basically for an assertion of ownership over the article, to suggest that your opinion is more valid than mine. I'd also add that there's no need to bring personal insults into this. It is totally unnecessary to suggest, for example, that because I think a paragraph about a film should be included in a biographical article that this somehow means that I "limit the modes by which [I] learn about history to TV." I have a PhD in history and teach history to undergraduates - I don't know, maybe you do too. But there's no reason to make snippy judgments about strangers you're arguing with on the internet. john k (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

For those who may be wondering, we're discussing my removal of this:

The dramatist Stephen Poliakoff wrote and directed the television serial The Lost Prince that covered many of the events that transpired on the world stage during the reign of King George V through the eyes of the youngest son, Prince John. It aired on BBC One in 2003 and November 2009, on BBC Two in 2006, on PBS in 2004 and again in 2005, on Television New Zealand TV One in 2005 and on Australian Broadcasting Corporation ABC in 2007. The title role was played by two young British actors, Daniel Williams (young Prince John) and Matthew Thomas (older Prince John). Charlotte "Lalla" Bill's character was played by Gina McKee. The film won three Emmy Awards.

John's story was also the subject of a Channel 4 documentary entitled Prince John: The Windsors' Tragic Secret.

...in favor of this:

John's life was the subject of the two-part television drama The Lost Prince, as well as the Channel 4 documentary Prince John: The Windsors' Tragic Secret.

And now back to our regularly scheduled programme, already in progress...

A particular portrayal of an historical or mythological figure (let's call him or her X) is worth noting (or depending on the situation, discussing or even elaborating on) -- in the article on X -- to the extent that such a discussion adds to an understanding of X and his or her place in history or popular perception. By that measure O'Toole as Lawrence, and Shakespeare on Macbeth, deserve mention in the Lawrence and Macbeth articles -- in fact they deserve not just mention, but substantial discussion, because details of Lawrence of Arabia and Macbeth (to repeat myself) add to an understanding of Lawrence of Arabia and Macbeth and their place in history or popular perception. (Of course, the film Lawrence of Arabia and play Macbeth have their own articles too, for independent reasons.)

Now then. How do the following facts add to the reader's understanding of Prince John's place in history or popular perception?

• A1. There was a TV drama about him, and here's its title and a link to more about it.
• A2. Poliakoff wrote the drama.
• A3. It aired on BBC One in 2003, BBC Two in 2006, and PBS in 2004 and again (!) in 2005! Oh, and on Television New Zealand TV One in 2005!!! And on Australian Broadcasting Corporation ABC in 2007!!!
• A4. John was played by Unknown Actors 1 and 2.
• A5. The nanny was played by well-known actress GK.
• A6. It won three Emmys (Emmies?). (Actually, The Lost Prince says "an Emmy" -- not three.)
• B1. There was a Channel 4 documentary as well. No link, but here's enough info to identify it in a library catalog or on Netflix.

My opinion:

• A1 and B1 don't themselves tell the reader much about John, but they do lead the reader to things (the drama or documentary) which themselves would tell the reader more, so they're worth including. (And on reflection, they best belong not in the article text proper at all, but rather under "See also" and/or "External links"; I left the "Channel 4" in because, since the documentary doesn't have its own article, that helps the reader identify it on Netflix or whathaveyou.)
• A2. Because Poliakoff is so prominent, the fact that he chose John as a subject might in a sense tell us something about John, so it might be worth including. Or not.
• A3-A6. Tell us nothing at all about John's "place in history or popular perception" (quoting myself here again, of course). They're just trivia.

So I kept A1 and B1, and dropped the rest.

EEng (talk) [2am 07Mar2012 UTC]

References

coronation

The channel 4 documentary "The Lost Prince" showed photographic evidence that the Prince John was at his grandfather's funeral in 1910, and was frequently seen in public until the First World War. This article seems inaccurate because mentions him mostly being shut up at Wood Farm. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Prince John of the United Kingdom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: EEng (talk · contribs) 18:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Scorecard so far Passed as GA

Final evaluation: Passed as GA. (I still have to do other formalities elsewhere -- give me an hour or two.) EEng (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well-written:

the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Verifiable with no original research:

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and

it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Reviewer eligibility

I did some light copyediting of this article about two years ago -- mostly removed some pop culture trivia -- anyway the article's been almost completely rewritten and expanded recently. I believe this doesn't disqualify me from doing the review. If I hear no objections in a day or two I'll get started. EEng (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Image copyrights?

Let me say first that I have every expectation the article will pass easily, so I'm starting with what I suspect will be the few problem areas. I'm unconvinced of the PD status of the following two inages. Alex, can you set me straight in my thinking, or get advice at an appropriate noticeboard?

• File:Prince_George_with_Prince_John.jpg: From information at the source url linked from the Commons description, I don't see any evidence of publication prior to purchase by the NPG in 1986. EEng (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@EEng: Thanks for your feedback. Beside the fact that it says "bromide print", the image is from a series used to create postcards. ([2] [3])

Ah yes. I think we're justified in assuming it was published as a postcard. EEng (talk)

• File:Prince_John,_1918.jpg Whether or not the base image was previously published, the signed image is certainly a unique work and there's no evidence it was published before being put on sale on the website linked from the Commons description.

The base of the image is the signed version, as you can see in the documentary on Prince John. I'm not sure if it was published or not, if it wasn't, what can I do? Perhaps I could crop the signature and leave the rest of the photo, would that be alright? Alex (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

By "base" I mean the unsigned image. If we can establish that the base image was used for postcards etc. (or otherwise published) then cropping out the signature would fix the problem (though of course taking away a lot of the interest of this particular image). EEng (talk)

@EEng: I don't think there is a way of determining whether it was or was not published. Alex (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

In other words, we have no evidence it was a postcard or whatever? I think that's right -- the quality is below what I'd expect for a postcard image, plus (as we well know) by now John was being "advertised" by the family, you might say. I think this is a private snap, never published until now.

Do we know who the photographer is and when he died? That would help too, if he died at least 70 years ago (or something -- I have to check). But I assume we don't. I don't see a fair-use argument. I think we have to conclude it will need to be deleted. Tell you what -- I'll post a query at copyright noticeboard to see if anyone can see a way out. If you know anything about photographer say so. EEng (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

@EEng: Post the query, I really don't see any other way out for this photo. Alex (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

discussion EEng (talk)

Nothing's happening there. I think we're out of luck. I don't see any choice but for you to mark the image for deletion at Commons. Sorry. EEng (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

There was a little more discussion (see link above) and I think based on that the image really should be deleted -- easiest way is to remove the license tags and add {{speedydelete|per uploader request}}. Sorry. EEng (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource changes for copyediting

There will probably be lots of little changes to the article during this process, and there's something I like to do to prepared for that, which is to add a linebreak between each sentence. This doesn't change the rendered page as the reader sees it, but it makes diffs much, much smaller and easier to understand. I'm bringing this up here because it drives some people crazy at first, but you get used to it. I'll demonstrate in the article -- feel free to object and revert if it really bugs you. EEng (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Source reliability

Except as noted (and so far none are noted) I don't see these as a bar to GA if tagged as suggested. Intersperse your thoughts.

1. Jamieson relates that Robert III of Scotland had been born John but took Robert on ascending in 1390. It's a push to use this to support the idea that John was considered unlucky by royals 500 years later. I propose dropping the source and tagging .

2. Unless Demoskoff is some renowned expert I don't think we can use her website as a RS. Propose tagging or .

3. I'm concerned about using Daily Mail for an historical topic, and most especially for history involving the royal family -- esp. given the condemnatory tone of the piece. One doesn't expect film/TV reviews to meet the highest fact-standards in any event. Presumably the author found these points elsewhere so I'll just tag . EEng (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

@EEng:

1. I've added the Oxford DNB as a reference instead ("He was given the names John Charles Francis, despite a centuries-old royal prejudice against the name John.") Let me know if this is alright.

2. Demoskoff is widely used on Wikipedia (see for example Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale). She does cite sources, so I believe her to be reliable.

3. I've removed the Daily Mail ref and I've replaced it with the documentary, although I feel too many points are referenced to the documentary and that's why I had added the newspaper. Alex (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

1. DNB, obviously. If you've seen any of the articles I've worked on a lot e.g. John Harvard (statue) you'll not be surprised at this suggestion: with the modern aversion to John not solidly cited to DNB, a quote from Jamieson can now be used in a fun note suggesting that the aversion to John extended as far away as Scotland, over 500 years earlier.

2. Demoskoff does seem to take pride in her work, and for the moment there's nothing wrong with citing her -- if we have to, forever. However, as you say she cites her sources so maybe someday someone can track these facts to more conventional sources and cite those instead. So I'll tag .

3. I'd take a serious BBC doc over the Mail any day. Perhaps we should tag the doc (TV/video is just so much harder to vet for reliability) but let's wait on that. EEng (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

@EEng:

2.Well, I could tag her source, which is, fyi, The Times, but there is no page cited. Would that be alright?

3.I don't see any difference between a documentary and a book, except that one is written and one is spoken. The documentary features comments from historians and experts in the history of the British royal family, so I don't see a problem. Alex (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

2. If someone looks it up in The Times and sees the material there, then the cite can be changed to The Times. In the meantime we can only cite where we saw it; the acts a reminder. One good approach is to cite "Demoskoff (www.blah.com), citing The Times, 18 January 1901".

3. Every kind of source has its reliability strengths and weaknesses, but I think we're agreed for now that the BBC doc is good enough for our purposes here. (I only suggested added because you seemed to have some slight reservation about it.)

Let me say it sure is a pleasure working with someone who doesn't take umbrage at everything. My copyedits haven't upset you? Not even a teensy bit? EEng (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@EEng:

2. I've added a better source, see here for the actual article.

I've also clarified the tags which you've added, except these two: "Winifred Thomas, a young girl from Halifax who had been sent to live with her aunt and uncle at Sandringham" & "nonetheless, cynics said that the family feared their reputation would be damaged by such an incident." I don't see why these need clarification, what is not clear?

I have no problem whatsoever with your copyedits. Alex (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Open the wikisource and look at the tag -- there are "reason=" parameters with explanation. These are not a problem for GA so not urgent. EEng (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@EEng: Hopefully these are solved now. Alex (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup, but I've added some new issues in the death section. EEng (talk)

@EEng: I've solved the issues, hopefully. I've also changed the image. As for the scorecard, why are the reliability of the sources and neutrality of the article still being reviewed? Alex (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
@EEng: I'd really appreciate it if you stopped editing the page over and over again, virtually changing the content completely and adding citation needed templates to text you've written. If there are issues, please bring them up here. Thanks, Alex (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

[Apparently something went wrong as I was saving the following, and I didn't notice until now, so here it is again]

The problem is that statements like "in reality", which imply that sources conflict but we are choosing one as "correct", have to be carefully sourced -- it has to be a situation in which a clearly authoritative source has refuted less careful sources and clearly trumps them. I do think that's the case here, but those sources need to be spelled out explicitly. In one case, I simply named the source (BBC doc) in the text, and in the other I added , which I'm sure you can fill in. (This is the statement that John's treatment was typical for the time -- I'm guessing the source is Whitney but I can't be sure.)

Other than that (which really needs to be done to meet the "words to watch" and "statements of opinion" GA requirements) I think if you look at my last edit you'll see it really doesn't change what's being said, rather that I rearranged the order for what I thought would be better flow. Please take a look again.

IMDB has to be used with caution but for major awards I think it's OK, at least for GA purposes.

EEng (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

@EEng: Thanks for clearing this out. I'd prefer to leave the sentence about his treatment as it is (and it indeed is Whitney I've cited it to). I've also changed the order to as it was before, because of the logical chronological order and I've added the last paragraph from the death section to the legacy section because I think it's referring to that, let me know if this is alright. Any other issues? Alex (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

We can talk about most of this after GA is done (and we're almost done -- I don't think I've said right out that I was thrilled to see your new version of the article -- great improvement over what was there before).

My remaining concern for GA is still the two statements, (1) "Much of the existing information ... is based on hearsay and rumor" and (2) "In reality ... treatment was usual for the time." Don't misunderstand me -- I have no doubt that (1) is true, and would be surprised if (2) isn't also true too. But both these statements are essentially taking sides with certain sources over other sources, and even that's OK if the sources we "endorse" are clearly authoritative compared to the others. So let's take these two statements one at a time:

• (1) I think it's fine to quote this statement, but we need to tell the reader in text where it comes from -- saying "According to a 200x BBC documentary,..." is fine.

@EEng: Done.

• (2) This one's a harder, because it deals with social norms among Edwardian aristocracy in a very private matter, and to consider a statement like "this was usual practice" reliable the source needs to cite solid scholarly research. I can't see all of Whitney but I don't think she cites a source or other basis for this statement, and frankly the whole book is a bit lightweight. We'll need something along the lines of [4] (though unfortunately I don't this it has what we need here specifically). If this was some minor point we could just omit it for now, but this is really central -- in fact it belongs in the lead. But first we need to find a solid source, or some other way to make the point. Don't worry -- we'll solve this. Does Tizley say something along these lines? EEng (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Tizley does say something about this, so maybe I could cite the documentary. Alex (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

A direct quote, even if it has to be pieced together with "...", would be great. Hope you don't think I'm being too much of a stickler about this -- it happens that my favorite subject Phineas Gage happens to be one in which, in the last 20 years, a single researcher's work has completely invalidated everything that had been written before, and how to establish that in the article appropriately (instead of a false "writer X says this, but writer Y says that" cop-out) took a lot of time and effort. EEng (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

@EEng: Sorry for replying, but I'm having a busy week. I'll add the quote during the weekend. Cheers, Alex (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"Sorry for replying" .. um, I guess you ARE having a busy week. I found a perfectly good cite (see article -- you may want to adjust the ref format -- Harvard cites and all). Congratulations! You're the proud parent of a new GA! EEng (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@EEng: Oh my, I meant sorry for replying so late. Thanks for your support! Cheers, Alex (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Seclusion not evidence of neglect

It is not true that his "seclusion has subsequently been brought forward as evidence for the inhumanity of the royal family". Seclusion is not neglect, but the reverse. It is desirable for members of the royal family to be brought up out of the public limelight.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Autism Being Force-fed

In all honesty this article seems to be trying VERY HARD to force feed the Autism angle to us. Would be nice if we had an article free from bias and agenda pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.11.104.9 (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I am rewriting this opening comment / observation:

"In 1909, John was discovered to have epilepsy and was also believed to have some form of intellectual disability and possibly autism."

And I am making a few other related changes. Autism was not even in the lexicon in 1909, this is a 21st century speculation, (and one that seem a bit of a reach). The discussion in the main text on his possible autism is clearer in that it is acknowledged that it is a 2004 diagnosis. The sentence also suggests that "intellectual disability" was also part of the 1909 diagnosis / discovery, but the timeline is not substantiated in the main article. When was the discovery?

Despite this criticism, it is generally a readable well written article.

GeeBee60 (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction?

The article currently says:

Contrary to the belief that he was hidden from the public from an early age, Prince John for most of his life was a "fully-fledged member of the family", appearing frequently in public until after his eleventh birthday.[11]
In 1912 Prince George, who was John's closest sibling, began St Peter's Court Preparatory School at Broadstairs. The following summer, The Times reported that he would not attend Broadstairs the following term, and that his parents had not decided whether to send him to school at all. After the outbreak of World War I, he rarely saw his parents, who were often away on official duties, and his siblings, who were either at boarding school or in the military. Prince John slowly disappeared from the public eye and no official portraits of him were commissioned after 1913.[11]

Both these details seems to be sourced to the Channel 4 documentary which I'm not going to try and view but these seems to be a contradiction or at least a poor wording here. I'd interpret the second paragraph to mean from ~1913, he "slowly disappeared from the public eye". But the earlier paragraph seems to suggest he was "appearing frequently in public" until after 12 July 1916 which is a weird if he was slowly disappearing from 1913. There was obviously an abrupt sudden change in 1916 when he was sent away but I sort of think the latter paragraph is more likely to be true and the former is an oversimplification. I wonder if it's better to just remove the bit after the comma, and maybe merge the two paragraphs and then re-jig the lead (which also mentions the eleventh birthday bit). But we'll need someone who knows the documentary to help. Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Spurious alleged quote

The note #2 claiming that George V said his father was afraid of his mother, he was afraid of his father, etc, etc. has not been proven to have actually been said by George. In fact, something that George DID say when his father died was that he had lost his best friend. That doesn't sound like someone who was afraid of his father. Also, if you look at photos of him with his children, you can see that they ALL have genuine smiles on their faces. His kids certainly didn't look like they were afraid of him in any way, and he looked like he cared very deeply for his children. This fake quote should not be used as any kind of source or proof of anything. It is completely unproven that he said it, and the known facts do not support the statement. 76.202.192.102 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

New image

• Someone will need to look into copyright status, but the photo here would be an invaluable addition to the article: [5]. EEng 04:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• Followup: I see now that [6], which was previously deleted due to copyright concerns, has been recreated. Great photo, but I don't see how the copyright issue was resolved. EEng 05:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)