`  For me it comes down to this: the lion has been used for ages as a personification of Britain, and its use here is pretty obvious.  Having said that, I don't think G2bambino's incorrect when he says that the lion could represent the Crown.  Frankly, the artist could have intended both, and a more sophisticated view of the poster would suggest a number of additional interpretations.  But the Crown allusion is a lot less obvious, and Lonewolf is probably right when he says it should be cited. The description of the image is sourced on the image description page, as per Wikipedia norms.  In my opinion, the description is uncontroversial and obvious, and does not require any unusual attribution (suggesting that it is the opinion of the Minneapolis library) or removal of the word ``Britain``.  However, if anyone disagrees and thinks Royalguard11's original image description goes too far, feel free to get consensus for a change here on the talk page. My own view is that rather than insisting that the lion doesn't necessarily represent Britain (which, fairly or unfairly, comes across like an attempt at making a point in retaliation to Lonewolf's revision), efforts would be better spent seeing if we can find any source for the Crown interpretation.  This poster was mass produced, it is held by a number of archives and libraries, and I believe that it has been reproduced numerous times.  Someone has likely written a more detailed interpretation that might contain the necessary information.    `